Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L94-0001 - FAA AND PORT OF SEATTLE - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT -0001 FAA /PORT OF SEATTLE sepa CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW liAILINGS FEDERAL AGENCIES ( )U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ( )FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ( )DEPT. OF INTERIOR -FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE ( )U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( )U.S. DEPARTMENT OF H.U.D. (REGION X) WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( )OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ( )TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ( )DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES ( )OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ( )DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ( )DEPT. OF FISHERIES ( )K.C. PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEV. ( )BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD ( )FIRE DISTRICT #11 ( )FIRE DISTRICT #2 ( )SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ( )TUKWILA LIBRARIES ( ) RENTON LIBRARY ( )KENT LIBRARY .( )CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY ( )US WEST ( )SEATTLE CITY LIGHT ( )WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS ( )WATER DISTRICT #75 ( )SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( )GROUP W CABLE ( )OLYMPIA PIPELINE ( )KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT ( )TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: ( )PUBLIC WORKS ( ) FIRE ( )POLICE ( )FINANCE ( )PLANNING ( )BUILDING ( )PARKS AND ORECREATION ( )TUKWILA MAYOR ( )DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES ( )DEPT. OF ECOLOGY, SHORELANDS DIVISION ( )DEPT. OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* ( )DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE ( )OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL *SEND CHECKLIST WITH DETERMINATIONS AND *SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING•COUNTY AGENCIES ( )KING COUNTY DEPT. OF PARKS ( )HEALTH DEPARTMENT ( )PORT OF SEATTLE ( )BUILDING & LAND DEV. DIV.- SEPA. INFORMATION CENTER SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES ( )HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( )KING COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY ( )SEATTLE MUNICIPAL REFERENCE LIBRARY ( )SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICTS ( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT UTILITIES ( )PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ( )VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( )WATER DISTRICT #20 ( )WATER DISTRICT #125 ( )CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS ( )RAINIER VISTA ( )SKYWAY CITY AGENCIES ( ) RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT ( )CITY OF SEA -TAC ( )CITY OF SEATTLE ( )CITY OF BURIEN ( )TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( )TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( )PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( )P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY ( )SW K.COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ( )MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ( )DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE MEDIA ( )DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE ( )VALLEY DAILY NEWS ( )METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIV." OFFICE /INDUSTRIAL 5,000 GSF OR MORE RESIDENTIAL 50 UNITS OR MORE RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR MORE ( )HIGHLINE TIMES • ( )SEATTLE TIMES. PUBLIC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR PERMITS SEPA MAILINGS Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing) Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section Applicant Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list) Include these documents: SEPA Determination (3 -part form from Sierra) Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Drawings /plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed & sent to newspaper). SHORELINE MAILINGS Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 30 -day appeal period begins . date received by DOE). Dept. of Ecology Shorelands Section State Attorney General Applicant Indian Tribes Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list). Include these documents: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part form from Sierra)' Findings (staff report, if applicable) Shoreline Application Form (filled out by applicant) Drawings /plans of project (site plan, elevations, etn. from PMT's) - Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvei►'ents - Cross - sections of site w /structures & shoreline - Grading plan - Vicinity map SEPA Determination (3 -part form from Sierra) Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline Notice of Application . Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed & sent to newspaper) Affidavit of Publication (notice was published in newspaper). City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor February 23, 1994 Ms. Barbara Paley Cutler & Stanfield 700 Fourteenth Street, N.W. Washington D.C. 20005 Re: Cutler & Stanfield Comments on the Proper Scope for the Seattle - Tacoma International Airport Master Plan Update and Third Runway Project Dear Ms. Paley: Thank you for transmitting the draft comments of the scoping agreement for our review. We are pleased with the breadth of comments, but suggest several revisions /additions. In addition, due to the volume of the document we ask that the final document's table of contents include a column with pages, or the bottom header include the section title. We are concerned about the logic of concluding that if 56% of commuter passengers are origin and destination passengers then half of the 40% of traffic using the airport could be transferred to a supplemental airport. Commuter service to outlying smaller markets may rely upon both the origin and destination traffic as well as the transfer market to have sufficient passengers to serve an area. Secondly, Logan Airport attempted to limit small plane use through preferential landing fees. This demand management tactic was challenged by small plane users. This technique should not be used unless we know of its validity. If this is to be suggested, cites of the conclusions in this case should be referenced. Noise (Page 67) Cleveland Elementary is not a South Central School. None of the houses of worship;Iocated within the City are located within an existing Part 150 noise contour so rather i appear inconsistent in our treatment of schools, hospitals, etc. we have not listed them. At your request we have included, as an attachment, those facilities that border on the noise contour and whose location could arguably be considered as being adversely impacted by any increase in airport generated noise. Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833 Ms. Barbara Paley February 23, 1994 Page 2 Land Use (Page 75) The City of Tukwila has not adopted a Comprehensive Plan pursuant to GMA at this date; therefore we do not think it appropriate to say that the proposal conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the policies within the existing 1977 Comprehensive Plan state that an efficient system of air transport should be encouraged and that existing jet noise from Boeing Field should be reduced; a possible result of SEA expansion. The proposal instead raises a question that needs to be answered. Will the SEA preferred alternative, or some other alternative, be compatible with the projected land uses within our Comprehensive Plan? Surface Transportation (Page 84) First we would like to suggest that you consistently use the word "street" rather than interchangeably with the word road. Second, like the schools and churches and historic buildings, we feel impacted streets should be listed as in our initial letter. "Serious gridlock" is an amorphous term that perhaps could be more explicitly explained as the impacts of: 1) reduced levels of service for streets and intersections below locally adopted standards, and 2) increased traffic volumes on typical local and minor collector streets. Water Quality (Page 91) We feel that the basins of Fostoria, Gilliam Creek and Crestview are currently associated with the airport facility and the proposal could also be connected into the system. It should therefore be included in the analysis. Social and Induced Socioeconomic Impacts (Page 92) We feel that this section should be expanded to include the socioeconomic impacts of increased airport surface traffic and the secondary economic effect on the local business base. If you have any questions, please call Moira Carr Bradshaw at (206) 431 -3651. Sincerely, L. Rick Beeler Director and SEPA Responsible Official cc: Mayor Moira Carr Bradshaw Church By the Side of the Road Foster Tukwila Presbyterian *Riverton Heights Presbyterian Southcenter Community Baptist St. Thomas Catholic Church ATTACHMENT 3455 S. 148th Street 14401 56th Avenue S. 15880 Military Road S. 14742 Macadam Road S. 4415 S. 140th Street None of these facilities are within the 1991 Noise Exposure Map. *Borders Part 150 contour area. No buildings of historic or architectural significance are in the impacted area. City of Tukwila ,... ,�..�. � .!' ? �,� <;. John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director 10 February 1994 Corbitt Loch Planning Manager City of Des Moines 21650 11th Avenue S. Des Moines, WA 98198 Subject: Scoping Comments for Sea -Tac International Airport Master Plan Update and Third Runway Project Dear Mr. Loch: Attached are the City of Tukwila comments on the scoping notice for the above project. Also enclosed is a computer disk containing the same in Word Perfect 5.1 format. I understand that you will be forwarding our comments. to Cutler and Stanfield for combination with comments from the other agencies of the Airport Communities Coalition. If you have any questions, please call Moira Carr Bradshaw at 431 -3651. Sincerely, / /i L. Rick : eeler Director and SEPA Responsible Official cc: Mayor ,Bradshaw, Attachment Enclosure . 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 . (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 .� • .... itStIP"Ofol.. ... Pil`.. 1908 ,, City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor S s' Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director Scoping Comments Sea -Tac International Airport Master Plan Update and Third Runway Project Regional Land Use Planning Identify how the Master Plan update and process comply with King County County wide Planning Policies FW -23 and S -1, page 46 and Multi- county wide Policies: RS -2 and RS -3. Local Land Use Pacific Highway, the former primary means of north /south travel in the region prior to the construction of the interstate system, acts as the only. neigborhood commercial area for Tukwila residents. Tukwila's Land Use plan proposes to rehabilitate the corridor into a premier neighborhood commercial area for Tukwila residents. Neighborhood commercial areas are important places to communities and serve as a source of identity and act as a reflection of the surrounding residential neighborhoods. How will the changes proposed in the Master Plan Update change the market demographics for commercial viablity of neighborhood businesses in this area? Identify measures that would support and improve these existing neighborhood commercial districts, without increasing the existing planned residential densities. What measures to improve residential neighborhood quality are necessary to counter balance the negative of being within the region's air facility's backyard? What long term perceived and real impacts might occur to commercial areas and residential neighborhoods due to anticipated construction activity? Water Quality / Fish Habitat / Storm Drainage Identify impacts to north and south canyon watercourses, Riverton, Gilliam, Southgate creeks. The existing and future drainage system for the Port facility needs to be mapped and coordinated with adjacent storm water utilities. What are the likely discharge increases to waters and what are the likely quality impacts to fish and wildlife habitat? Identify proposed measures to reduce impacts. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206)431-3665 Surface Transportation What emergency access plan is designed for natural or other disasters and how would that necessitate alternative designs of adjacent surface streets? A freeway closure (emergency, maintenance or construction) plan should be identified and coordinated with local agencies, Metro and commercial services. Are there long term travel /circulation impacts due to construction impacts? Compare the surface transportation impacts of preferred (freeway access) alternative to the other alternatives and specifically review : Pacific Highway S., 42nd Avenue S., Macadam Rd/ 51st Avenue S., S. 154th Street, S. 160th St., 180th /178th St., and S. 212th St. Identify peak hour traffic effects on the use of alternative circulation routes to the facility. Identify what surface street designs are necessary to reduce (inhibit) travel as airport access alternatives. Identify what alternative mode . facility siting and routing would support and or reduce vehicular trips on surface streets. Air Transportation What existing modes and system management methods exist to satisfy existing and forecast travel demand? What potential technological advances in methods and equipment exist to expand capacity of airport facility? How does air travel demand change under different potential regional transportation improvement scenarios? Given the projected and potential combination of uses at the new Sea -Tac facility what are the likely changes to air traffic and Boeing Airfield use? How is proposed Master Plan coordinated with others in the air transportation system and specifically with those in the region? Can less competitively managed facilities meet or be improved to meet some aspect of air travel demand? Noise What are the likely increases in the production of noise on the residential neighborhoods? What are the unique noise impacts on hospital patients and rehabilitation and school children and learning - specifically: The Highline Specialty Center, 12400 Military Road; and Cascade Elementary School, 13535 32nd Avenue S. Air Quality Recognizing that the Clean Air act at the State and Federal levels establishes acceptable pollution standards and that in general the Puget Sound area is within a nonattainment area for carbon monoxide and ozone, how does the air quality-at the airport and its vicinity, compare with air quality at other locations within the Puget Sound region? Identify what measures both at the Airport and in coordination with the region, will be taken to reduce the level of nonattainment and to comply with the standards. TO: Rick Beeler FROM: Moira Carr Bradshaw DATE: 9 February 1994 SUBJECT: Scoping Comments Corbitt Loch called and said that if we had scoping comments going to Cutler and Stanfield (C&S), Des Moines needed them by 3:00 p.m. on the 10th. They requested a hard copy and disk. I did not write the attached comments in the form of a letter, because I understand that the information will be used and repackaged by C&S. I received feedback from.Ron C. City of Normandy Park Planning Department Draft Comments Regarding Specific Impacts to the City in Relation to Proposed Actions at Sea -Tac Airport Noise Impacts: The City of Normandy Park is concerned about the noise impacts that would be caused by actions relating to the proposed master plan update for Sea -Tac Airport, which includes the construction of a third parallel runway. It is assumed that the proposed master plan update will include several projects and proposals which will cause noise impacts on the surrounding communities. It will be essential that each of the proposed actions included in the master plan update, be analyzed to study the potential of increased noise from two perspectives. One perspective is the noise that would be caused from the actual construction of the facilities or the implementation of a program, the other is the noise impacts, if any, from the completed facility. NOTE. The master plan update scoping notice does not specifically identify projects that will be proposed in the master plan (except the third runway). Therefore, specific comments on the types of noise impacts the City wishes to be studied are general in nature and scope. Generally, from both perspectives, the City of Normandy Park is concerned about the impacts increased noise will have on single and multi - family residential land uses, commercial land uses (all ranges), industrial land uses (all ranges), public and private schools (including day -care facilities), parks and recreation facilities, historic sites and structures, churches, cultural resources, and transportation facilities. Specifically, the City is concerned about the increased noise impact which will result from the implementation of a third runway at Sea -Tac. The facilities and land uses we would request to be studied are listed above. However, we are also concerned about the impacts on the community resulting from: 1) increased truck and construction vehicle traffic; 2) on -site construction activities and construction which will result in the surrounding neighborhoods due to the required mitigating measures and other associated applicable construction activities. In addition, the City is concerned about the impacts of increased noise after the implementation of the proposed third runway. These concerns include: 1) increases in the size of Ldn contours set forth in FAR Part 150; 2) routine maintenance run -ups; 3) taxiway noise and the general airport facility noise that will be increased; 4) truck and automobile noise associated with increased capacity at Sea -Tac. Land Use: The City of Normandy Park is concerned about the effects' actions proposed in the Master Plan Update will have on land uses surrounding the airport. It has been thoroughly documented that actions and operations at Sea -Tac affect, to a certain extent, the entire Puget Sound area. Therefore, the City would request that the Port of Seattle study whether each of the land use actions proposed in the master plan update will be consistent with the residential, commercial and industrial neighborhoods not only in the immediate vicinity of the Airport, but the in a broader regional perspective. This broad perspective should not be interpreted to mean that the City of Normandy Park is not concerned about specific land use impact in the immediate area surrounding the airport. In addition, the City believes that the Port of Seattle and the FAA should study the impacts on the community resulting from: 1) the displacement of land uses related to activities proposed in the master plan update and the implementation of the third runway, including the associated clear and safety zones; 2) the impacts related to the lower property values that will result from action proposed; 3) loss of public open spaces; 4) the reduction in the recreational value of parks and open spaces (both public and private) in the immediate area surrounding the airport. U.S.C. Section 4(f) and Section 509 See Comments under Land Use Impacts. 1 agree with the premise th ,..lie GMA offers an avenue to challeng ,te Port's plans. What i can not offer is what the outcome of that challenge will be. I believe that there is Some risk that the city might and itself, iii. cot►.l]ict with the countywide planning policies or the regional transportation plan before the airport issue is resolved, AJso, J believe there is considerable risk in moving this issue to the state level, However, it seems inevitable to me so my recommendation to the city would be to prepare the best possible plan and set of development regulations within tine framework of the CN\PP and the Regional Transportation Plan. With regard to the CWPP's, there are two points to keep in wind.: First, a staff committee of the PSRC has just reached agreement on how to handle the issue of "consistency ". The revised draft, based. on the agreement, should be available. How consistency is judged by the PSRC is critical for having your comprehensive plan conform to the regional tr,ansportati.on plan which is iu turn critical for transportation finzding. Second, in the development of your comprehensive plan, there may be policies currently in the CWPP's that are problematic and for which you would want to propose changes to the CWPP's. Parts of the CWPFs are currently under review and may result in changes. Jf there are issues for the city, it would be advantageous to identify these and be in a position to raise them at the time other changes are being proposed. It is very important that the city not become isolated in perspective or in approach. A.s one ex.atnple, a component of the Regional Transportation Plan, a Regional Airport System Plan is being prepared. This plan focuses on ground access including freight movement, mass transit access, high speed rail. (including possible implications for alternative sites). This has to be a regionally integrated plan with decisions on funding allocation between modes, These fiiiiding decisions have to he included in. the TIP. This is tutn bas implications for how the Transportation Improvement Board allocates their fiin.ds. There are two areas %\'here I can offer immediate assistance. 1. Lead and facilitate a discussion with your. Management Team on the general provisions of the GMA; key issues of concern to the city and to each department: includ ne a question and answer session. I would emphasize the new and unique nature of the GMA and why it is important to all city departments. I would propose to provide the members with basic information prior to the session to stimulate their thinking and to promote an active discussion. I would reserve some time fat:ming the session for individual follow -up. 2. Meet with you (and others from the city) to review in more detail the issues summarized in this tnetno concerning the third runway. It can be determined at that time if additional discussions with others are desirable. 1 have already done soMa research concerning,this issue and have additional meetings scheduled for this week, I would be ready to undertake this initial meeting in the next week or two. Topics could include the G1VI.A, PSRC and the Regional Transportation Plan, CWPP's, PSRC`s "duel track" process to look at both the third runway and the feasibility for a siupplementary airport, essential public facilities identification (including the potential impact of • proposed legislation on these topics.) FEB- 2 -94 WED 8:05 CITY OF BURIEN FAX NO. 206 +248 +5539 P.08 1 would allocate up to four hours for each of these activities as outlined in this proposal. Cost for time 07085 per Iiour plus eXpenses) should not exceed $S50 for both items. if there is additional work added, the sauce rate would apply, FEB- 2 -94 WED 8:04 February '1, 1994 To: From: Subject: CITY OF BURIEN FAX NO, 206 +248 +5539 i 'Tich:tel .1. NicCnrniicL;. A 1C.P . 2420 Columbia S \L waNbington 9N50 Office: (206) 754 -2916 1 AX (2O() 751-34-IS Fred Stouder Buxien City Manager Mike McCormick G14LAJBurieu. Comprehensive Planning /SeaTac Third Runway You have asked for my thoughts on the three subjects noted above, including any specific proposals I might offer to help the city. I appreciate the invitation and offer this memo as a formal response. P. 06 I am presenting all three of these items because they are siguificautly related to each other. The overriding framework is the G.M.A. The GMA establishes a new planning context which is new and still evolving. While we may thank that we know what the act means, very little has been tested through the growth Planning Hearings Boards and none has been through the courts. The key issue of consistency (within and between plans; with eoutltywide planning policies and with the basic provisions of the act) remains dramatically unresolved. The very real conflicts between locaL regional and state interests has not been resolved. (The current GMA. gives strong preference to local interests but I am certain this will be modified as state and regional. interests are more clearly identified which is curteutly under way at the state level and in evidence i.n several pieces of legislation which would move authority to resolve issues to the state such as day care facilities and transportation facilities.) It is important for the city to participate in the SEPA process to be on the record and to demonstrate a willingness to work in good faith. However, it is unrealistic to expect that, in and of itself. this will block the third runway. A principle issue in the regulatory reform debate is the complexity of local regulations especially the cost and time associated with SEPA compliance. It is important to make sure that all potential areas of cost and mitigation are included in the SEPA process. ft is clear from my discussions with others familiar with the third runway that the Port feels they need to proceed but the costs of environmental impacts plus mitigation trial/ he tool expensive. If you have not already done so, I would recommend that the city secure a copy of the envirouitiental documents prepared for the Boeing expansion. at Paine Field. While the situation is not identical, there is enough similarity to warrant an examination. (It is also clear Coin a quick . comparison. of the comments Elul the other ACC cities that there are some missing pieces for Burien..) I would recommend that some thought begin to be given to the nature of an acceptable mitigation package including who would be expected to pay including regional cost and revenue sharing. Port of Seattle /FAA EIS Scoping City of Des Moines (February 2, 1994 Draft) NOISE a. Effects of the dispersion of noise over a larger area surrounding the airport. b. Effects upon noise - sensitive land uses within the Des Moines Planning Area, including: 1. Existing and planned residential areas, including:. A. Increased night -time ambient noise levels. B. Interrupted sleep due to aircraft noise. C. Increased construction costs. 2. Downtown and highway commercial areas. A. Impacts upon commercial activity. B. Increased construction costs. 3. Existing and planned public facilities and utilities, including: A. Public and private schools. B. Public and private parks, recreational facilities, and open space. C. Des Moines Library. 4. Historic, architectural, archeological, and cultural resources. 5. Places of assembly /worship, including: A. St. David of Wales Anglican Parish, 22975 24th Ave. S. B. Assembly of God, 26421 Pac. Hwy. S. C. Assembly of God Church of Des Moines, 21650 24th Ave. S. D. Crossroads Assembly, 26454 16th Ave. S. E. First Baptist Church of Des Moines, 22415 19th Ave. S. F. Sound View Baptist Church, 2045 S. 216th St. G. Victory Baptist Church, 1807 S. 223rd St. H. St. Philomena Catholic Church, 1790 S. 222nd St. I. Christian Tabernacle Church, 25234 Pac. Hwy. S. J. Midway Community Covenant Church, 22460 24th Ave. S. K. Des Moines Foursquare Church, 2038 S. 222nd St. L. Grace Lutheran Church, 22975 24th Ave. S. M. Lutheran Church of the Resurrection - Missouri Synod, 134 S. 206th St. N. Des Moines United Methodist Church, 22225 9th Ave. S. 0. Amazing Grace Christian Center, 21625 29th Ave. S. P. Christian Faith Center, 21024 24th Ave. S. Q. Des Moines Gospel Chapel, 21914 7th Ave. S. R. Eternal Temple of Truth & Light, 25040 Pac. Hwy. S. S. Seattle Full Gospel Church, 24645 Pac. Hwy. S. T. Highline Reformed Presbyterian, 106 S. 206th St. U. Marcus Whitman Presbyterian, 2130 S. 248th St. V. First Unitarian Universalist Church of Seattle, 25701 14th P1. S. W. Des Moines Masonic Temple, 2208 S. 223rd St. X. Dance Club West, 25600 Pac. Hwy. S. POS /FAA DEIS Scoping -mments Page 2 : >' Y. Zenith Place, 1826 S. 240th St. Z. Des Moines Yacht Club, 22737 Marine View Dr. S. AA. North Hill Community Club, 4th Ave. S. 6. Retirement facilities and health care facilities in or near the Des Moines Planning Area, including: A. Wesley Homes. B. Masonic Home. C. Judson Park. D. SeaToma Convalescent Center. E. Des Moines Vista. F. Midway Manor Convalescent. G. Monarch Care. H. Highline Community Hospital. 7. Natural areas, including: A. Wetlands. B. Wildlife habitat areas. c. Effects of the proposed mitigation measures related to operational noise. d. Effects within, and outside of, the Ldn contour of 65 dBA. e. Effects of noise should be analyzed using metrics other than the Ldn metric, including single -event noise analysis: 1. Acoustical energy dose (SEL). 2. Acoustical intensity metric (AL). 3. One -third octave band. 4. Sound pressure levels. 5. Time above threshold (TA). f. Effects of construction noise. g. Effects of the proposed mitigation measures related to construction noise. LAND USE a. Compatibility of the proposed expansion with existing land uses within the Des Moines Planning Area. b. Compatibility of the proposed expansion with land uses identified in the Land Use Element of the Greater Des Moines Comprehensive Plan, including: 1. Effects on the future availability of land for residential purposes. c. Effects of demolition of occupied residences and the displacement of residents. d. Effects of the proposed mitigation measures regarding land use. SOCIAL IMPACTS a. Effects of demolition of occupied residences and displacement of residents. b. Effects of any business displacement caused by the proposed expansion. c. Effects of any changes in employment caused by the proposed expansion. d. Effects of the disruption of the communities with the Des Moines Planning Area, including the downtown neighborhood commercial district and the highway commercial district. POS /FAA DEIS Scoping ments Page 3 e. Effects upon decreased school enrollment that may occur with increased noise impacts around the airport. f. Social impacts associated with the alternative proposals. g. Analysis of whether and how the impacts can be avoided. h. Identification of POS /FAA plans for avoiding all avoidable impacts upon the Des Moines Planning Area and its residents. i. Effects of the proposed mitigation measures regarding social impacts. SAFETY a. Analysis of the increased risk of accident created by the proposed expansion and project alternatives, including increased risk of fire, explosion, aircraft collision, ground transportation vehicle collision. b. Analysis of traffic controllers' ability to see all runway crossings and the third runway during inclement weather. c. Analysis of the existing and future take -off and approach patterns over densely - populated areas and places of assembly throughout the Des Moines Planning Area. d. Effects of the proposed mitigation measures regarding safety impacts. SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS a. Effects of noise on residential property values within the Des Moines Planning Area. b. Effects of noise on commercial property values within the Des Moines Planning Area. c. Effects of lower property values upon the local property tax base. d. Effects of lower property values upon the local demand for public services. e. Effects of new lower income residents upon local business revenues. f. Effects of decreased local population resulting from POS buy -out of residential areas. i. Effects of the proposed mitigation measures regarding social impacts. AIR QUALITY a. Emissions inventory for existing and forecast POS conditions with and without the proposed expansion, using the data requirements and prescribed methodologies set forth in the FAA Air Quality Handbook. b. Effects of increased vehicle emissions within the Central Puget Sound Non - Attainment Area for National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), including: 1. Aircraft operations. 2. Aircraft maintenance. 3. POS Ground vehicle operations. 4. POS Ground vehicle maintenance. 5. Ground vehicle traffic to and from the airport. c. Construction - related effects on air quality within the Central Puget Sound Non- Attainment Area for NAAQS, including: 1. Operation of construction equipment and vehicles. POS /FAA DEIS Scoping aiments Page 4 2. Suspension of particulates during demolition and construction, including: A. Deviant dust from construction vehicles. d. Detailed analysis should include effects of increased: 1. Carbon monoxide (1 -hour and 8 -hour standards). 2. Ozone. 3. Sulfur dioxide. 4. Acid rain, including toxic metals mobilized by acid in water: A. Lead. B. Cadmium. C. Mercury. D. Aluminum. 5. Suspended particulates, including: A. Dust. B. Oxygenated and un- oxygenated aircraft fuel. 6. Lead. 7. Arsenic. 8. Asbestos. e. Effects of air pollutants on children, and residents of retirement facilities and medical care facilities in or near the Des Moines Planning Area. f. Analysis of compatibility of the proposed expansion and mitigation. measures with Washington's State Implementation Plan (SIP). g. Effects of the proposed mitigation measures regarding operational and construction impacts upon air quality. WATER QUALITY a. Effects on ground water quality from runoff from new runways, taxiways, service roads, etc. b. Effects on surface water quality from increased runoff from new runways, taxiways, service roads, etc. Analysis should provide qualitative and quantitative data for existing and forecast conditions with and without the project for drainage ways, including: 1. Des Moines Creek and its tributaries. 2. Miller Creek and its tributaries c. Short -term and long -term effects of construction activities on both ground and surface water quality. d. Detention /containment of accidental discharge of pollutants including jet fuel. e. Detention /containment of deicing agents (ethylene glycol, urea, salt, etc.), or other pollutants associated with use of the 3rd runway during inclement weather. f. Effects of the proposed mitigation measures regarding water quality impacts. POS /FAA DEIS Scoping iments Page 5 SECTION 4(f) DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION ACT, AND SECTION 509(b)(5) OF THE AIRPORT AND AIRWAY IMPROVEMENT ACT a. Disclosure and analysis of the effects upon section 4(f) lands (publicly -owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance, or land of an historic site of national, state, or local significance): 1. Documentation of current uses of section 4(f) lands. 2. Analysis of how current uses would be affected by the proposal. A. Analysis of average and maximum noise levels on a daily and annual basis. B. Disclosure of the increase in noise levels for each year. 3. Effects of the proposed mitigation measures related to section 4(f) lands. 4. Disclosure and analysis of alternatives that avoid section 4(f) lands. b. Disclosure and analysis of effects upon section 509(b)(5) lands, including: 1. Fish and wildlife. 2. Natural, scenic, and recreational assets. 3. Water and air quality. 4. Effects of the proposed mitigation measures related to section 509(b)(5) lands. c. Within the Des Moines Planning Area, section 4(f) and section 509(b)(5) may include: 1. Big Catch Plaza (Marine View Dr. So. & So. 218th St.) 2. Barnes Creek Nature Trail. 3. Cecil Powell Park. 4. City /Kiddie Park. 5. Des Moines Field House. 6. Des Moines Beach Park and tidelands. 7. Des Moines Creek Trail. 8. Des Moines Elementary. 9. Des Moines Marina /Fishing Pier. 10. Des Moines Memorial Park. 11. Highline Community College. 12. Madrona Elementary. 13. Midway Elementary. 14. Mt. Rainier High. 15. North Midway Park. 16. North Hill Elementary. 17. Olympic Elementary. 18. Overlook Park I and II. 19. Pacific Middle. 20. Parkside Elementary. 21. Parkside Park. 22. Parkside Open space (wetlands). 23. Redondo Waterfront Park. 24. Saltwater State Park. 25. South 239th Streetend Park and tidelands. 26. Woodmont Elementary. POS /FAA DEIS Scoping f.mments Page 6 27. Woodmont Park. 28. Wooton Park. 29. Zenith Park. HISTORIC, ARCHITECTURAL. ARCHEOLOGICAL. AND CULTURAL RESOURCES a. Effects on historic, architectural, archeological, and cultural resources, including: 1. Des Moines I.O.O.F. Lodge #305 (Community Club Hall), 728 S. 225th St. 2. Pedersen House (Van Gasken House), 402 S. 222nd St. 3. Old Gay House (Latimer House), 21617 7th P1. S. 4. Hacker Residence (Finnell House, Dickenson House), 22514 6th Ave. S. 5. Elsey House, 921 S. 223rd St. 6. Case Home, 22006 10th Ave. S. 7. Roger Fotte Residence (Rayback House), 22018 11th Avenue S. 8. Walsworth House, 1104 S. 223rd St. 9. Pool Residence (L.H. Smith House), 22204 9th Ave. S. 10. McConnaughey Residence (Lindahl House), 304 S. 216th St. 11. Whisler Residence (Chesney House), 1255 S. 216th St. 12. Des Moines Field House (WPA Park Building), 1000 S. 220th St. 13. Jacob Reith Homestead (Muckleshoot Indian Campground), 26225 Pac. Hwy. S. 14. Shell midden (OAHP Inv. #KI00003A). 15. Des Moines Beach Park (Covenant Beach Historic District), 22030 Cliff Ave. S. 16. Masonic Home of Washington, 23660 Marine View Dr. S. b. Analysis of potential impacts upon historic, architectural, archeological, and cultural resources should include: 1. Impacts resulting from displacement or encroachment. 2. Impacts resulting from noise, vibrations, air pollution, etc. c. Effects of the proposed mitigation measures regarding historic, architectural, archeological, and cultural resources. PUBLIC FACILITIES. SERVICES. AND UTILITIES a. Effects upon the operation of public and private schools, including: 1. Des Moines Elementary. 2. Madrona Elementary. 3. Midway Elementary. 4. North Hill Elementary. 5. Olympic Elementary. 6. Parkside Elementary. 7. Woodmont Elementary. 8. Zenith Elementary (planned facility). 9. Chinook Middle. 10. Pacific Middle. 11. Mt. Rainier High. 12. Tyee High. 13. Highline Community College. 14. Christian Faith Center. POS /FAA DEIS Scoping ( nments Page 7 15. Kennedy High School. 16. St. Philomena. 17. Highline School District Administrative Offices. b. Effects upon public services, including: 1. Police. A. City of Des Moines Police. B. King County Sheriff's Office. C. Port of Seattle Police. 2. Fire. A. King County Fire Districts 2, 11, 24, 26, 39. B. Port of Seattle Fire Department. C. South King County Medic One Units 4, 8. D. City of Kent Fire Department. 3. Hazardous Materials Response. 4. City of Des Moines administration, operations, and maintenance. 5. City of Des Moines public meeting facilities. 6. City of Des Moines Senior Center. 7. U.S. Postal Service branch - downtown Des Moines. 8. Planned U.S. Postal Service facility, S. 216th. St. 9. Des Moines Library. 10. Highline Community College Library. 11. Airport operations, including: A. Administrative offices. B. Maintenance facilities. C. Operational services and facilities, including fuel storage. c. Effects upon utilities, energy, and natural resources, including: 1. Domestic water operations and facilities. A. Water District 54. B. Highline Water District. C. Seattle Water Department. 2. Sanitary sewer operations and facilities. A. Midway Sewer District. B. Southwest Suburban Sewer District. 3. Electric power. A. Existing and forecasted energy demands with and without the planned expansion, and the capacity of existing and planned improvements. 4. Natural gas. 5. Solid waste collection, transportation, and disposal (including construction, demolition, and land clearing debris). 6. Telecommunications service, facilities, transmission, and reception. d. Effects of the proposed mitigation measures regarding public facilities, public services, and utilities. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES a. Analysis of irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources, including: 1. Financial resources. 2. Airspace. 3. Nonrenewable energy resources. POS /FAA DEIS Scoping ,mments Page 8 BIOTIC COMMUNITIES a. As outlined by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. Section 661 et seq.), POS /FAA must consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Washington State Dept. of Wildlife (DOW) regarding impacts to fish and wildlife resources. b. Consultation and analysis with FWS and DOW should include: 1. Qualitative and quantitative inventory of existing and forecast conditions in all biotic environments with and without the proposed expansion. A. Documentation and analysis of all significant, transient, or minor impacts resulting directly or indirectly from the proposal. B. Identification and analysis of specific measures to conserve, replace, and improve biotic environments affected by the proposal. c. Within the Des Moines Planning Area, affected biotic communities include: 1. Des Moines Creek and its tributaries. 2. Massey Creek and its tributaries. 3. POS buy -out areas. 4. Des Moines Beach Park. 5. Undeveloped State Route 509 right-of-way. 6. The shoreline of Puget Sound within the Des Moines Planning Area, including the Regionally Significant Resource Areas (RSRA) identified by K.C. GROUND TRANSPORTATION a. Analysis of existing and forecasted traffic conditions with and without the proposed expansion. 1. Baseline future traffic conditions should include cumulative traffic volumes resulting from all known projects and general regional growth. A. Baseline future traffic conditions should be prepared with and without major roadway improvements, such as extension of S.R. 509. b. Analysis of existing and forecasted cumulative parking conditions with and without the proposed expansion. 1. Baseline future traffic conditions should include cumulative traffic volumes resulting from all known projects and general regional growth. c. Effects of concurrency requirements of the Growth Management Act, including construction schedules and funding strategies. d. Effects of the proposed mitigation measures regarding ground transportation impacts. POS /FAA DEIS Scoping 'mments Page 9 ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES a. Consultation with either the FWS or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to ensure that the proposal will not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or adversely impact habitat of such species. 1. Analysis should include cumulative impacts resulting from alterations to the physical environment (such as destruction of wetlands) as well as operational impacts (including collisions between planes and avian populations). b. Effects of the proposed mitigation measures regarding endangered and threatened species. WETLANDS a. Inventory of existing wetlands affected by the proposed expansion, including: 1. Identification of wetland boundaries according to methodology outlined in the Federal Manual for Identifvinq and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. 2. Vegetation mapped according to the methodology outlined in Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. 3. Rating of the wetlands (significant or important) according to the methodology outlined in Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. 4. Sightings or signs of fish or wildlife. 5. Soil mapping units within the wetland area. b. Effects of cumulative changes in the quality and quantity of surface or ground waters which support or contribute to affected wetlands. c. Effects on public health, safety, and welfare, including: 1. Water supply, quality, recharge and discharge. 2. Pollution. 3. Flood and storm hazards. 4. Sedimentation and erosion. d. Effects on maintenance of natural systems, including: 1. Conservation and long -term productivity of existing flora and fauna. 2. Species and habitat diversity and stability. 3. Hydrologic utility. 4. Fish, wildlife, timber, food, and fiber resources. e. Analysis of impacts upon other uses of wetlands in the public interest, including: 1. Recreational uses. 2. Scientific uses. 3. Cultural uses. f. Effects of the proposed mitigation measures regarding wetland impacts. POS /FAA DEIS Scopi ngCmments Page 10 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT /FLOODPLAINS a. Analysis of existing and forecasted cumulative surface water flow volumes, 100 -year floodplains, and impacts of flooding with and without the proposed expansion. 1. Direct and indirect cumulative effects upon existing streams and tributaries, including: A. Des Moines Creek. B. Massey Creek. C. Barnes Creek. 2. Direct and indirect cumulative effects upon existing and planned built drainage systems, including: A. Detention and retention facilities. B. Conveyance facilities, such as ditches, pipes, and culverts. C. Treatment methods and facilities. b. Effects of the proposed mitigation measures regarding surface water management and floodplains. EARTH /SOILS a. Analysis of existing and forecasted geologic and hydrogeologic conditions near the project site. b. Analysis of erosion hazards, including: 1. Potential for erosion during construction. 2. Potential for erosion throughout the life of the project. c. Analysis of landslide hazards (ground shaking, landslides, liquefaction, and ground failure), including impacts due to: 1. Hydrogeologic activity. 2. Seismic activity. d. Effects of the proposed mitigation measures regarding earth and soils. AIR SPACE a. Disclosure and analysis of existing and forecasted flight patterns over the Des Moines Planning Area. b. Effects of the proposed mitigation measures regarding air space. LIGHT EMISSIONS a. Effects of cumulative light emissions upon land uses within the Des Moines Planning Area, including residences, schools, retirement facilities, and health care facilities. b. Effects of the proposed mitigation measures regarding light emissions. AESTHETICS /URBAN DESIGN a. Effects of changes in vegetation, topography, scale of development, etc. b. Effects upon vistas from public and private properties. c. Effects of mitigation measures regarding aesthetics and urban design. POS /FAA DEIS Scoping Lments Page 11 HAZARDOUS WASTE a. Effects of demolition of existing residences, including asbestos and underground storage tanks. b. Remediation of contaminated soils found at the project site. 1. Incorporation of the results of an remedial investigations which have been conducted in the expansion area. 2. Conduct additional investigations and testing to determine the extent of existing contamination and the difficulty of remediating that contamination. 3. Effect of construction and operation of the expanded facility on future remediation of any contamination. c. Effects of construction of the expansion and the operation of the expanded facility on the release or further migration of hazardous waste. d. Effects of the proposed mitigation measures regarding hazardous wastes. ct120:POSscope.doc JAN -26 -94 WED 8:18 CITY OF BURIEN FAX NO 206+248 +5539 CITY OF BURIEN Mayor Arun Jhaver1 Deputy Mayor Sally Nelson Cgtuicilmembers JGhn Kennelly 1ri�•ldll Mrtthew5 Kitty M ilne th rt, Lysen Dottie. Herper P. 01/02 13838 - 1st Avenue South' Phone :. (206) 241 -464 Burten, Washington 98168.3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob C)lander FROM: Gregg Dob.rn Jt DATE: January 26, 1994 SUBJECT: EIS Scoping Fax: (206) 248•353'S. JAN L b 1994 it Post -It" brand fax tral ssmittal memo 7671 x of pagee l►. iiii r� ` �-- i Dept. FAx# .0T - at 2rs5-. g Fa" Q_/V 65-2/4/ Here is a brief summary listing of, the EIS issues that We would be particularly concerned about. When Corbet gets this, have him give me a call at 241 -4647 and I'll decipher it. Thanks. Storm Water Management a. adequate collection b. treatment c. impact on capacity of the drainage basins - potential property damage - future development limitations for the City -cost of required improvements 2. Noise a. Impact on current land uses - residential - business - commercial - community hospital - schools recd r;lemotolaneferiJp Impact on future land uses - changes to land uses that a new noise footprint might precipitate MEMORANDUM January 25, 1994 To: Gregg Dohrn, City of Burien, Fax # 248 -5539 Bob Olander, City of Des Moines Greg Fewins, City of Federal Way, Fax H 661 -4129 Dale Gredler /Steve Bennett, City of Normandy Park, Fax # 439 -8674 Moira Bradshaw, City of Tukwilla, Fax # 431 -3665 John McFarland, City of Tukwilla, Fax // 433 -1833 From: Corbitt Loc C(Jty of Des Moines, Fax 0 870 -6544 Re: COMMENTING ON SCOPE OF SEA -TAC AIRPORT EXPANSION EIS Below is a draft schedule for compiling scoping comments by February 10th. Please review and bring your suggestions to our Thursday meeting. 1/25 Complete "laundry list" of affected environments, fax to C. Loch. 1/26 Laundry lists compiled and distributed to all parties. Cities prepare comments regarding noise. Cities prepare comments regarding land use. 1/27 Cities prepare specific comments regarding Section 4(f) and Section 509 lands. Thursday meeting, 2:00 p.m., Des Moines Conference Room. Review draft schedule. Comments compiled and distributed during meeting. 1/28 Cities prepare comments regarding hazardous waste. Cities prepare comments regarding social impacts. Cities prepare comments regarding socioeconomic impacts. 1/31 Cities prepare comments regarding air Quality. Cities prepare comments regarding water Quality. Cities prepare comments regarding public facilities & utilities. 2/1 Prepared comments forwarded to C. Loch. Cities prepare comments regarding wetlands. Cities prepare comments regarding biotic communities. Cities prepare comments regarding endangered and threatened species. 2/2 Comments compiled and distributed to all parties. Cities prepare comments regarding safety. Cities prepare comments regarding light emissions. Cities prepare comments regarding floodplains. 2/3 Cities prepare comments regarding historic. architectural. archeological. and cultural resources. Cities prepare comments regarding aesthetics /urban design. Thursday Meeting, 2:00 p.m., Des Moines Conference Room. 2/4 Cities prepare comments regarding air space. Cities prepare comments regarding ground transportation. Cities prepare comments regarding 2/7 Prepared comments forwarded to C. Loch. 2/8 Comments compiled by Des Moines. 2/9 Comments compiled by Des Moines. Compiled comments distributed to all parties. 2/10 Thursday Meeting, 2:00 p.m., Des Moines Conference .Room. Review of all comments. Comments sent by express mail to Cutler &Stanfield. o020:posmomol.doc This recycled paper is recyclable. 1 JAN -26 -94 WED 8:18 CITY OF BURIEN - cost of noise mitigations to developer /sponsors - impact on land values /investment decisions FAX NO, 206 +248 +5539 3. Transportation a. Construction ingress /egress impacts -noise -road impacts /cost of repair - replacement b. Operational ingress /egress - capacity - noise, congestion, etc. -who will pay the cost of replacing lost capacity P. 02/02 4. Capital Facilities Planning a. Full identification of needs /impacts in all areas is required b. impact on capacity of delivery systems c. who will pay the cost of providing required services without degradation of service level (concurrence) 5. Fiscal Impact a. Impact on property tax revenues to the City and other taxing districts. Environmental Impacts a. In order to fully assess potential impacts, baseline data must be gathered well in advance, by generally acceptable methods, with publicly shared outcomes (at the Port's expense). elr16,41anJcr';fp 1. noise 2. air quality 3. water quality MEMORANDUM January 25, 1994 To: Gregg Dohrn, City of Burien, Fax N 248 -5539 Bob 0lander, City of Des Moines Greg Fewins, City of Federal Way, Fax # 661 -4129 Dale Gredler /Steve Bennett, City of Normandy Park, Fax # 439 -8674 Moira Bradshaw, City of Tukwilla, Fax # 431 -3665 John McFarland, City of Tukwilla, Fax # 433 -1833 From: Corbitt Loc (Cjty of Des Moines, Fax # 870 -6544 Re: COMMENTING ON SCOPE OF SEA -TAC AIRPORT EXPANSION EIS Below is a draft schedule for compiling scoping comments by February 10th. Please review and bring your suggestions to our Thursday meeting. 1/25 Complete "laundry list" of affected environments, fax to C. Loch. 1/26 Laundry lists compiled and distributed to all parties. Cities prepare comments regarding noise. Cities prepare comments regarding land use. 1/27 Cities prepare specific comments regarding Section 4(f) and Section 509 lands. Thursday meeting, 2:00 p.m., Des Moines Conference Room. Review draft schedule. Comments compiled and distributed during meeting. 1/28 Cities prepare comments regarding hazardous waste. Cities prepare comments regarding social impacts. Cities prepare comments regarding socioeconomic impacts. 1/31 Cities prepare comments regarding air quality. Cities prepare comments regarding water quality. Cities prepare comments regarding public facilities & utilities. 2/1 Prepared comments forwarded to C. Loch. Cities prepare comments regarding wetlands. Cities prepare comments regarding biotic communities. Cities prepare comments regarding endangered and threatened species. 2/2 Comments compiled and distributed to all parties. Cities prepare comments regarding safety. Cities prepare comments regarding light emissions. Cities prepare comments regarding floodplains. 2/3 Cities prepare comments regarding historic. architectural. archeological. and cultural resources. Cities prepare comments regarding aesthetics /urban design. Thursday Meeting, 2:00 p.m., Des Moines Conference Room. 2/4 Cities prepare comments regarding air space. Cities prepare comments regarding ground transportation. Cities prepare comments regarding 2/7 Prepared comments forwarded to C. Loch. 2/8 Comments compiled by Des Moines. 2/9 Comments compiled by Des Moines. Compiled comments distributed to all parties. 2/10 Thursday Meeting, 2:00 p.m., Des Moines Conference Room. Review of all comments. Comments sent by express mail to Cutler & Stanfield. ctI2O:posmamol .doc This recycled paper 1s recyclable. NOISE Burien Des Moines Normandy Park POS MASTER PLAN /3RD RUNWAY EIS SCOPING SUMMARY OF CITY SCOPING COMMENTS BIOTIC COMMUNITIES Des Moines Normandy Park Federal Way SURFACE TRANSPORTATION Burien HEALTH Des Moines Des Moines Normandy Park Normandy Park Federal Way ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES Des Moines LAND USE Normandy Park Des Moines Normandy Park WETLANDS Des Moines SOCIAL IMPACTS Normandy Park Des Moines Normandy Park SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT (STORMWATER /FLOODPLAINS) SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS Burien Burien Des Moines Des Moines Normandy Park Federal Way Normandy Park EARTH /SOILS Des Moines SAFETY /HEALTH Normandy Park Des Moines Federal Way COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AND Normandy Park COASTAL BARRIERS Des Moines AIR QUALITY Normandy Park Burien Des Moines LIGHT EMISSIONS Normandy Park Des Moines ( ?) Normandy Park WATER QUALITY Burien Des Moines Normandy Park SECTION 4(f) DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION ACT, AND SECTION 509(b)(5) OF THE AIRPORT AND AIRWAY IMPROVEMENT ACT Des Moines Normandy Park HISTORIC SITES Des Moines Normandy Park PUBLIC FACILITIES. SERVICES. AND UTILITIES Burien Des Moines Normandy Park AESTHETICS /URBAN DESIGN Des Moines Normandy Park HAZARDOUS WASTE Des Moines Federal Way (via health impacts?) Normandy Park CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS NOT ADDRESSED ABOVE Des Moines (7) ctI20:brfscope.doc 1 /27/94 . . TO : TUI W1 I LA PLANNING JAN -27 -' % THU 10:28 (1 r,: DES MOINES PL ENG Rd TEL NO: 206 8' S544 #491 P01 LAOIS Burien Des Moines Normandy Park Federal Way HEALTH Des Moines Normandy Park Federal Way LAND USE Des Moines • Normandy Park ,i POS MASTER PLA /3RD RUNWAY EIS SCOPINO SUMMARY OF CITY SCOPING_COMMEIVfS, SOCIAL IMPACTS Des Moines Normandy Park SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS Burien Des Moines Federal Way Normandy Park SAFETY /HEALTH Des Moines Federal Way Normandy Park AIR QUALITY, Burien Des Moines Normandy Park WATER QUALITY Burien Des Moines Normandy Park SECTION 4(f) DEPT. OF TRANSpQRTATION nr. AND SECTION 511e(blt5) OF THE AIRPORT MID AIRWAY IMPROVEMENLACT Des Moines • Normandy Park HISTORIC SITES Des Moines Normandy Park mug FACILITIES. SERVICES_ AND FUTILITIES, Burien Des Moines Normandy Park DIOTIC COMMUNITIES Dos Moines Normandy Park SURFACE TRANSPORTATION Burien Des Moines Normandy Park ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES Des Moines Normandy Park WETLANDS Des Moines • Normandy Park SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT (STORMWAT i/fLOODPLAIN I Burien Des Moines Normandy Park EARTH /SOILS Des Moines Normandy Park COASTAL ZONE_ MANAGEMENT AND COASTAL BARRIERS Des Moines Normandy Park T Des Moines ?) Normandy Park RECEIVED JAN 2 / 1994 COiV MUNITY AESTHETICS /URBAN DESIGN DEVELOPMENT. Des Moines Normandy Park HAzAI;Dous wASIE Des Moines Federal Way (via health impacts?) Normandy Park CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS NOT ADDRESSED MO Des Moines (7) od2O:brf000ps.doo '1/27/94 Post4t brand fax transmittal memo 7671 l r of mom' 1 . e'' Tv it tNi l� PI(INw ty�' rum 431 - ,r nml4#%.i4 Lek "1"4"r11,1o4 14 ax' *ib. b14¢ TO: TU W I LA PLANNING JAN- 25 -'94 TUE 17:31 I 'I'S MOINES PL ENG PW TEL NO:206 8 wG544 MEMORANDUM January 25, 1994 #487 P01, RECEIVED JAN 6 1994 t:;UMlfMMUNF_IY To: Gregg Dohrn, City of Burien, Fax # 248 -5539 DEVELOPMENT Bob Olander, City of Des Moines Greg Fewins, City of Federal Way, Fax # 661 -4129 Dale Gredler /Steve Bennett, City of Normandy Park, Fax # 439 -8674 Moira Bradshaw,, City of Tukwilla, Fax :# 431 -3665 John McFarland, City of Tukwilla, Fax # 433.1833 From: Corbitt Loc j t' y of Des Moines, Fax 870 -6544 Re: COMMENTING ON SCOPE OF SEA -TAC AIRPORT EXPANSION EIS Below is a draft schedule for compiling scoping comments by February 10th.. Please review and bring your suggestions to our Thursday meeting. 1/25 Complete "laundry list" of affected environments, fax to C. Loch. 1/26 Laundry lists compiled and distributed to all parties. Cities prepare comments regarding noise. Cities prepare comments regarding land use. 1/27 Cities prepare specific comments regarding Section 4(f) and Sectioq 509 lands. Thursday meeting, 2:00 p.m., Des Moines Conference Room. Review draft schedule. Comments compiled and distributed during meeting. 1/28 Cities prepare comments regarding hazardous waste. Cities prepare comments regarding social impacts. Cities prepare comments regarding socioeconomic impacts. 1/31 Cities prepare comments regarding air quality. Cities prepare comments regarding water quality. Cities prepare comments regarding public facilities & utilities. 2/1 Prepared comments forwarded to C. Cities prepare comments regarding Cities prepare comments regarding Cities prepare comments regarding 2/2 Comments compiled and distributed Cities prepare comments regarding Cities prepare comments regarding Cities prepare comments regarding Loch. wetlands,. biotic communities. endangered and threatened species. to all parties. safety. light emissions. floodplains. 2/3 Cities prepare comments regarding historic. architectural. archeological. and cultural re4ourcgs. Cities prepare comments regarding aesthetics /urban slesigg. Thursday Meeting, 2:00 p.m., Des Moines Conference Room. %v'% n 2/4 Cities prepare ^lmments regarding air space. Cities prepare' mments regarding around transo ' >::atj on. Cities prepare comments regarding ae4i 0;15 2/7 Prepared comments forwarded to C 2/8 Comments compiled by Des Moines. 2/9 Comments compiled by Des Moines. Compiled comments distributed to 2/10 Thursday Meeting, 2:00 p.m., Des Review of all comments. Comments sent by exprcus mail to ct$20:poememol .doc . Loch. all parties. Moines Conference Room. Cutler & Stanfield. This recycled paper is recyclable. ELIOT R. CUTLER JEFFREY L. STANFIELD SHEILA D. JONES PAIGE E. REFFE PERRY M. ROSEN JAMES H. HOLT PETER J. KIRSCH BYRON KEITH HUFFMAN, JR. KATHERINE B. ANDRUS BARRY CONATY DAVID F. GOOSSEN• WILLIAM G. MALLEY• DANA C. NIFOSI MICHELLE B. NOWLIN• BARBARA PALEY THOMAS D. ROTH J. BARTON SEITZ •NOT ADMITTED IN D.C. TO: CUTLER & STANFIELD 700 FOURTEENTH STREET, N. W. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005 TELEPHONE: (202) 624 -8400 FACSIMILE: (202) 624 -8410 THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT AND ATTORNEY - CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS M E M O R A N D U M Executive Committee AIRPORT COMMUNITIES COALITION FROM: CUTLER & STANFIELD DATE: January 12, 1994 RECEIVED JAN 18 1s.:4 CITY OF DES MOINES 1625 BROADWAY DENVER, COLORADO 80202 TELEPHONE: (303) 592 -4200 FACSIMILE: (303) 592 -4205 RE: Comments on the Scope of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Expansion of Seattle- Tacoma International Airport (Task Memorandum 417) On December 20, 1993, the Federal Aviation Administration ( "FAA ") formally announced that an Environmental Impact Statement ( "EIS ") will be prepared by the FAA and the Port of Seattle ( "Port ") for a Master Plan Update for the expansion of Seattle- Tacoma International Airport ( "SEA "). The EIS is intended to comply with both the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ( "SEPA ")V and the National Environmental Policy Act ( "NEPA ")V with respect to the proposed addition of a third 1/ v Chapter 43.21C RCW. 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321- 4370c. runway at SEA and other airport improvements. Comments on the scope of the EIS must be submitted by February 25, 1994. A. THE SCOPING PROCESS The scoping process is the first critical step in federal and state legal review of the Port's airport expansion plans. We strongly recommend that the Airport Communities Coalition ('ACC'") submit thorough and detailed comments on the proper scope of the EIS. A failure to do so could foreclose future opportunities to institute an administrative or legal challenge to all or portions of the draft and final EIS documents and would narrow the opportunities available to the ACC to influence the outcome of the EIS process. 1. The Importance of Scoping Scoping is the foundation for the entire environmental review process that will follow. The scoping document will establish the boundaries and identify the issues to be considered in the EIS. Once the scope of the EIS has been determined by the lead agency,' it is unlikely that any additional issues will be considered as part of the EIS review. The first, and possibly the most critical step in the process of developing an EIS is the determination of the In this case, the FAA and the Port are joint lead agencies, because the EIS is designed to satisfy the requirements of both NEPA and SEPA. 2 document's proper subject matter and scope.' This determination establishes the depth and breadth of all subsequent environmental analyses for the proposed action, and will frame the issues for potential litigation challenging the EIS. One objective of the scoping comments is to ensure that the EIS "[r]igorously explore[s] and objectively evaluate[s] all reasonable alternatives, "' even those not within the jurisdiction of the Port.a Therefore, it is particularly important for the ACC to urge that the scope of the EIS for the Master Plan Update at SEA should include regional alternatives to new runway capacity at SEA. The consideration of regional alternatives would require the FAA and the Port to broaden their consideration of "all prudent and feasible alternatives" to the use of parks, recreational facilities and historic places'- and to broaden their consideration of all "practicable alternative[s]" to destroying or degrading wetlands.' The See 40 C.F.R. § 1501.7; U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Aviation Admin., Order 5050.4A, Airport Environmental Handbook (1985) ( "Order 5050.4A ") 9 74a. 5/ 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a). See. e.g., Environmental Defense Fund v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs, 492 F.2d 1123 (5th Cir. 1979) (adhering to earlier D.C. Circuit decision that NEPA requirement to analyze alternatives did not intend to limit an agency to consideration of only those alternatives that it could adopt or put into effect) . See section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 303(c). See also 49 U.S.C. app. § 2208(b)(5). See Executive Order No. 11,990 § 1(a)(2), 42 Fed. Reg. 26,961 (1977), amended by Executive Order No. 12,608, 52 Fed. Reg. 34,617 (1987), reprinted in, 42 U.S.C. § 4321. 3 consideration of regional alternatives also would give the.ACC the opportunity to demonstrate that an additional runway at SEA would be inadequate to provide a significant long -term increase in air transportation capacity for the Puget Sound region. In addition to alternatives, federal regulations require every EIS to consider the u , and need for, the proposed project,' the environment affected by the proposed project ,10 and the environmental consequences of the project in comparison to all reasonable alternatives.' -'' Further, FAA regulations list a number of specific environmental effects that must be considered in the EIS, such as noise, induced socioeconomic impacts, water and air quality and land use." 2. The Purpose of the Scoping Process The purpose of the scoping process is not to reach any conclusions as to the environmental desirability of a particular proposal. Rather the goals of scoping are to ,j.deentify the public and agency cOnCerns; rr ,,. „_..pi_e_a 1y c ,f,.,i,ne,..the. nii,r.4J3Rental issues_ and alternatives to be examined in the EIS in� clu`cing the elimination o nonsigni i ant issues; identify related issues which originate from separate legislation, regulation, or Executive Order . . .; and 9, iy 40 C.F.R. § 1502.13; 40 C.F.R. § 1502.15; 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16; U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(iii). '-� Order 5050.4A 1 85. Order 5050.4A 4 82. Order 5050.4A 1 84. Order 5050.4A 1 85. See also 42 identify state and local agency requirements which must be addressed.- Scoping is a critical element in the environmental process because of its potential to "have a profound positive effect on environmental analyses, on the impact statement process itself, and ultimately on decisionmaking. "Y Moreover, the FAA's regulations recognize that "[s]coping is a major element" in the preparation of an adequate EIS." Federal regulations explain that to determine the proper scope of an EIS, three types of actions, three types of alternatives and three types of impacts must be considered: (a) Actions (other than unconnected single actions) which may be: (1) Connected actions, which means that they are closely related and therefore should be discussed in the same impact statement. Actions are connected if they: (i) Automatically trigger other actions which may require environmental impact statements. (ii) Cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously. (iii)Are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. ' 3' - - Council on Environmental Quality Memorandum: Guidance Regarding NEPA Regulations, 48 Fed. Reg. 34,263 (1983), reprinted in, 17 Envtl. L. Rep. 35,045. iv CEQ Memorandum: Scoping Guidance (Apr. 30, 1981) 17 Envtl. L. Rep. 35,031 ( "CEQ Memorandum: Scoping Guidance "). 1a/ Order 5050.4A 1 74a. 5 ( (2) Cumulative actions, which when viewed with other proposed actions have cumulatively significant impacts and should therefore be discussed in the same impact statement. (3) Similar actions, which when viewed with other reasonably foreseeable or proposed agency actions, have similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their environmental consequences together, such as common timing or geography. An agency may wish to analyze these actions in the same impact statement. It should do so when the best way to assess adequately the combined impacts of similar actions or reasonable alternatives to such actions is to treat them in a single impact statement. (b) Alternatives, which include (1) No action alternative. (2) Other reasonable courses of actions. (3) Mitigation measures (not in the proposed action) . (c) Impacts, which may be (1) Direct; (2) indirect; (3) cumulative .2' The number and nature of cumulative, connected, or similar actions to be addressed will affect the complexity of the EIS document, because the impacts of all these actions and their alternatives must be examined. Strategically, it is advantageous to force an EIS to become more detailed and comprehensive, because a comprehensive document is likely to reveal more data on environmental impacts and is likely to provide more fertile opportunities for later judicial challenge. _ 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25. B. THE SUBSTANCE OF THE SCOPING COMMENTS We recommend that the ACC submit scoping comments that address each of the requisite elements of a proper EIS.J This will be the ACC's opportunity officially to put the FAA and the Port on notice that the EIS must be broad, comprehensive and thorough. The comments should be specific, seeking to highlight particular environmental effects of the proposed third runway at SEA. The comments should reflect those matters which the ACC wants to be included in the EIS. If the ACC does not take advantage of this opportunity, it might be foreclosed from challenging the scope of the EIS in the future. The Council on Environmental Quality, the federal agency charged with regulating NEPA compliance, has observed that [n]o longer may individuals hang back until the process is almost complete and then spring forth with a significant issue or alternative that might have been raised earlier. You are now part of the review process, and your role is to inform the responsible agencies of the potential impacts that should be studied, the problems a proposal may cause that you foresee, and the alternatives and mitigating measures that offer promise.'' In As a useful illustration of the issues to be addressed in scoping comments, we have provided under separate cover the comments which we prepared for the City of Bridgeton, Missouri regarding the scope of the EIS on a proposal to expand Lambert - St. Louis International Airport. ' s/ CEQ Memorandum: Scoping Guidance at 35,036. 7 C_ 1. Preparation of the Scoping Comments The comprehensive scoping comments should include the following elements: • ' Discussion of the ACC's views on the purpose andtzt,,C.:, need for the project; ► Z Discussion of connected, cumulative and similar actions; • 3 Discussion of alternatives; ► Discussion of direct and indirect impacts of noise; • Discussion of section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act''' regarding the use of parks, recreational facilities and historic places; ► (/ Discussion of wetlands; ► 7 Discussion of water quality issues; • $ Discussion of air quality issues; ► c) Discussion of section 106 of the National Historic, Preservation Act;' • l Discussion of hazardous waste issues; ► {U Discussion of safety issues; • 12 Discussion of requirements for conserving biotic communities; and • i3 Discussion of endangered and threatened species. We have sought to devise the most efficient and cost approach to developing adequate scoping comments. We that Cutler & Stanfield assemble the final document, uld include a discussion of the legal requirements as Y° ter` \ effective recommend which sho � L 49 U.S.C. § 303(c). 16 U.S.C. § 470f. 8 they relate to the specific facts applicable to the SEA expansion proposal. research last year into Washington law and the factual predicates upon which the Flight Plan FEIS was based have provided much of the information necessary for the legal analysis. In an effort to maximize efficiency and minimize cost to the ACC, we recommend that the ACC provide the factual material necessary to support the legal. analyses. Therefore, we propose the following task assignments. 2. Task Assignments a. Cutler & Stanfield Cutler & Stanfield will coordinate preparation of the scoping document. We will integrate the discussion and analysis of the legal requirements with the . facts relevant to the proposed expansion of SEA. a. Airport Communities Coalition Cutler & Stanfield will rely on the ACC staff to provide the bulk of the material in the scoping comments. We recommend that a single staff person be designated to work closely with Robert Olander and us to compile the following ?'/ As you can see from the scoping comments submitted on behalf of the City of Bridgeton, we have prepared largely similar t legal discussions and analyses for other clients. We will have to integrate this prior research with the facts relevant to the proposed expansion of SEA. 9 information from all of the cities and to prepare it in a format which can effectively be included in the final document.° ► Up to date information on the AIRTRAC findings, PSRC actions and other relevant regional and local assessments of the need for, alternatives to, and impacts of, a third runway at SEA; ► Information on possible land use effects of the proposed third runway at SEA specifically stressing the incompatibility with local comprehensive plans developed pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act7' and other relevant provisions of the Growth Management Act; ► Information on specific parks, recreation facilities, historic, architectural, archaeological and cultural resources which could be physically taken or adversely affected by increased noise caused by construction and operation of a third runway at SEA; ► Information on state or regional park and recreational plans and needs assessments helpful in demonstrating that a third runway at SEA will decrease needed park and recreational resources in the cities; ► Information on historic, architectural, archaeological and cultural resources listed in the National Register of Historic Places or eligible for listing in the National Register which could be physically taken or adversely affected by noise and traffic, or other impacts of the construction and operation of a third runway at SEA; ► Information on specific wetlands which could be threatened by construction of a third runway at SEA; Comments must be received at the FAA's Northwest Mountain Region office no later than February 25, 1994. In order All factual assertions should be footnoted to the appropriate -- preferably original -- source. Chapter 36.70A RCW. 10 TO: Jack Pace FROM: Moira Carr Bradshaw DATE: 26 January 1994 SUBJECT: Scoping Sea -Tac Airport Master Plan Attached is the schedule for the ACC technical committee. As you can see there are three meetings scheduled - 27, 3, and 10. On and after the 10th, the combined comments are sent to an out -of -state law firm, Cutler and Stanfield, for final editing and submittal to the FM and Port. Several questions are raised: 1. By participating, we will be included in the letter from the firm of Cutler and Stanfield to the Port and FAA. Is this what the "City" wants? 2. Does the City wish to prepare a separate or additional scoping letter? 3. There are several scoping meetings coming up in February a citizen scoping meeting on 9 February 4 - 8, Tyee High School and an agency scoping meeting on 10 February 9:30 - 11:00 Sea -Tac Auditorium. Does the City wish to send anyone to the citizen scoping meeting to get a feel for the issues and include any additional comments into the City's own comments. Secondly, will anyone attend the Port meeting and should they speak? Initial List of affected environments Land Use Broadly the airport creates and attracts a certain type of market such as freight delivery/forwarding, hotels, car rental and parking, industrial kitchens, etc. It also can create a negative environment for housing and hence household retail and service markets such as recreational programs and facilities, restaurants, bakeries, etc. 99 and Interurban Avenue are designed and located as neighborhood commercial areas. How does the proposal's impact on the demographics and the image and perception effect the commercial, market viability of these areas? What measures are necessary to counter balance the negative of being within the region's air facilities backyard - primarily on residential quality? • Water Quality / Fish Habitat / Storm Drainage Drainage corridors as far south as S. 170th Street, emit strong gas fumes. The existing and future drainage system for the Port facility needs to be mapped and available to adjacent storm water utilities. What are the likely increases to the discharge to waters, what are the likely impacts to fish and wildlife habitat. Proposed measures to reduce impacts. Roads What access emergency system is designed for . natural or other disasters and how would that necessitate alternative designs of adjacent surface streets? Are there long term travel /circulation impacts due to the construction related travel and impacts. How would peak hour traffic effect the use of alternative circulation routes to the facility? What surface street designs are necessary to reduce travel as airport access alternatives Air Space Given the projected and potential combination of uses at the new Sea -Tac facility what are the likely changes to Boeing Airfield use. Noise What are the likely increases in the production of and alternatives to noise on the neighborhoods. Miscellaneous cc: Rick Beeler Ross Earnst Ron Cameron , A4.49 -A, iv.x', ,s.. ••�, .sy o/ 40 - z City o Tukwila t � �`'= o1 f .41 * 2 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 1908 coal John W. Rants, Mayor To: Lucy From: John McFarland Date: January 6, 1994 Re: 3rd Runway EIS Scoping Document Attached is an announcement from the FAA regarding the development of the scoping on the EIS for the third runway. I'm not certain how the Council would like to handle this. I called Bob Olander to see what strategy the ACC has in mind Cutler Stanfield is reviewing the document, and will be recommending a course of action to the ACC next week. Bob will call a meeting of the ACC technical work group at that point and they will develop a specific work plan. Should the Council have and questions or suggestions in the interim, please let me know. cf: Mayor City Attorney DCD (Attn Moira Bradshaw) RECEIVED JAN 10 "1994 commuNrry DEVELOPMENT Phone (206) 433 -1800 • Clly Hall Fax (206) 413- 1833 U.S. Department ( • _ ! Northwest Mountain Region of Transportation ` ' 4.0. Colorado, Idaho, Montana Oregon, Utah, Washington Federal Aviation j18.4` .4 �C'` Wyoming Administration cW i'4 December 20, 1993 John McFarland City of Tukwila 6200 SouthCenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 1601 Lind Avenue; S. W. Renton, Washington 98055 -4056 RE: Scoping on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Master Plan Update including the Third Parallel Runway at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport Dear Mr. McFarland: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is announcing that the FAA and Port of Seattle, as joint. lead agencies, will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a Master. Plan Update at Seattle - ,Tacoma.. International Airport which is anticipated to include a new parallel runway. We are seeking scoping involvement and consultation with Federal, state, and local government agencies and interested public. Please submit to my office any.written questions or comments that you may have regarding this action .nolatetrs:tfiat aebruary 25, x::1994. :1. Enclosed is a scoping document that provides a description of the following issues: background, alternatives, contents of the Environmental Impact, Statement and key issues. In addition, enclosed is a copy of the Notice of Intent that will be published in the Federal Register. Comments and suggestions are invited from Federal, State and local agencies, and other interested parties and individuals to ensure that the full range of issues related to a Master Plan Update EIS are addressed and all significant issues identified. To facilitate the receipt of written comments,; two scoping meetings will be conducted. The first meeting will.be held on Wednesday February 9,.1994-between 4 p.m.. end '8 p.m. at Tyee Senior.; High School ;t 4424 South 188th Street, City of SeaTac. This meeting will be conducted for the general public in an open house /workshop format. A second meeting will occur for Federal, state and local agencies in the Sea -Tac Auditorium, Mezzanine Level, Main Terminal, Seattle- Tacoma international Airport at 9:30 a.m. until 11 a.m. on February 10, 1994. Scoping comments are encouraged by the FAA and Port of Seattle. Please do not hesitate to contact my office at (206);=227 -2611 if you have any questions regarding the EIS or scoping process. Thank you. "1/16-- Dennis Ossenkop Airports Division Enclosure "Expect Excellence" 4910 -13 PUBLIC NOTICE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Determination Of Significance And Notice Of Intent To Prepare An Environmental Impact Statement -And To Conduct Soaping For Seattle- Tacoma International Airport, Seattle, Washington AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ACTION: Notice of Intent SUMMARY: The Northwest Mountain Region of the Federal Aviation Administration ( "FAA ") and the Port of Seattle ( "Port ") announce that the FAA and the Port, acting as joint lead agencies, intend to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposal by the Port to develop a new parallel runway and other airport facility improvements to be examined in an update to the Seattle - Tacoma International Airport (Sea -Tac Airport) Master Plan. To ensure that all significant issues related to the proposed action are identified, scoping comments are requested. DATE AND ADDRESS FOR COMMENTS: To facilitate the receipt of written comments, two scoping meetings will be conducted. The first meeting, in a workshop format, will be conducted for the public on February 9, 1994. A meeting for Federal, state and local agencies will be conducted on February 10, 1994. Send; . comments to, or.: seek':: additional ' information from the r.sponui.bl• Federal official Mr •:Dennis'Ossenkop, Airports Division, Federal Aviation Administration,; 1601' Linda Avenue= ',SW,:'`.Suite 540, Renton, Washington 98055 -4056. To be considered, written comments must be received on or before February 25, 1994. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: Recent planning studies have indicated both an existing and long -term need for additional airfield capacity at Sea - Tac Airport. Under current demand levels, the Airport experiences reduced operating capability and delay during bad weather conditions due to the close - spacing of the existing parallel runways. During busy hours, arrival demand exceeds the bad weather arrival capacity and aircraft and passenger delays result. In addition to increasing the. severity of delays caused by bad weather, continued growth in aircraft. operational demand is projected to exceed Sea- Tac's,annual airfield capacity within the next ten years. The objective of the Master Plan Update, and accompanying EIS, is to address the bad weather capacity problem and to meet long -term regional air travel needs spurred by a growing regional economy. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared for the Master Plan Update, which is expected to include numerous projects including, but not be limited to: a new parallel runway and improvements to the passenger terminal, ground access system, and other support facilities. The range of new parallel runway options that may be considered in the EIS are anticipated to be in the immediate vicinity of the existing airfield at Sea -Tac Airport. Based on the Master Plan Update, other airport developments that may be considered in the EIS would be located on or in the immediate vicinity of the existing Sea -Tac Airport property. Mitigation measures will be proposed, as necessary, for the significant adverse impacts created by development. Major actions or concepts to be discussed in the draft EIS include the no action alternative and other reasonable alternatives meeting the purpose and need. Such alternatives are expected to include seveial options related to runway lengths, separations and threshold stagger. The FAA and Port of Seattle have determined that the new parallel runway is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared. The FAA and Port of Seattle have identified the following key areas for discussion in the EIS including, but not limited to: alternatives, noise and land • use, social and socio - economic impacts, human health, water resources, biotic communities, construction, earth, transportation and air. quality. Scoping is the initial step in the preparation of the EIS. The ■coping process is "an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to the proposed action." Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. Comments and suggestions are invited from Federal, State and local agencies, and other interested parties and individuals to ensure that the full range of issues, related to a Master Plan Update EIS are addressed and all significant issues identified. To facilitate the receipt of comments, two 'moping meetings will be conducted. A public workshop will be conducted to receive written comments on February 9, 1994 from 4 p.m. until 8 p.m. at Tyee Senior High School, 4424 South 188th Street, City of SeaTac. The second meeting will be held on February 10, 1994 between 9 :30 a.m. and 11 a.m. for Federal, state and local agencies in the Sea -Tac Auditorium, Mezzanine Level Main Terminal Building, Seattle - Tacoma International Airport. Issued in Renton, Washington on December 20, 1993. Original Signed By: Edward G. Tatum, Manager Airports Division Federal Aviation Administration Northwest Mountain Region Renton, Washington Original Signed By William E. Brougher SEPA Responsible Offical Port of Seattle SEATTLE- TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AGENCY SCOPING MEETING OUTLINE February 10,1994 - Federal/State and Local Agencies 9:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. Sea -Tac Auditorium - Mezzanine Level, Terminal Building CONTENTS The purpose of the agency scoping meeting is to discuss the scope and content of the . EIS on the Airport Master Plan Update, which will include a third parallel runway. During the meeting, the FAA, the Port and its consultants will present information about the EIS process, the purpose and need for airport development, alternatives to be considered, and the planned contents of the EIS. Following these presentations, the Federal, state and local agencies in attendance will be requested to provide input, during an open discussion session, on these issues. This outline identifies the general issues and topics to be presented and discussed at the agency scoping meeting. I. INTRODUCTION II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROCESS III. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE AND NEED IV. ALTERNATIVES TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE EIS V. CONTENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT VI. OPEN SCOPING DISCUSSION I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Puget Sound Regional Council and the Port of Seattle, after extensive study, resolved to study a third runway at Sea -Tac and a major supplemental. airport as a means to satisfy regional aviation needs. 2. The Port of Seattle recently initiated a Master Plan Update for Seattle- Tacoma International Airport. The purpose of the Master Plan Update is to identify the range of airport development projects needed at Sea -Tac through the year 2020 and alternative ways of providing these facilities. Based on this Master Plan Update, the FAA and Port of Seattle, as joint lead agencies, will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which will include the assessment of a third parallel runway. 3. The public scoping process is the initial step in the preparation of the EIS. The public scoping process, as defined by the President's Council on Environmental Quality, is "an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to the proposed action ". Therefore, the public scoping process will result in the identification of: ▪ A range of actions (projects) to be studied in the EIS; • Alternatives - those to be rigorously explored and evaluated and those that may be eliminated; and Key or significant environmental issues to be studied in the EIS. The FAA requests that all scoping comments be formalized in written correspondence no later than February 25,1994 to: Mr. Dennis Ossenkop Federal Aviation Administration Airports Division 1601 Lind Ave, S.W. Renton, Washington 98055 -4056 Dec. 23, 1993 -1- II. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PRQCESS 1. The illustration below shows the general process of preparing and coordinating an Environmental Impact Statement. 2. The environmental documentation will be prepared to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Two FAA documents will be used to guide the process: FAA Orders 1050.1D "Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts" and 5050.4A "Airport Environmental Handbook ". It is anticipated that the Draft EIS (DEIS) will be completed and available for public /agency review in the spring 1995. Notice of Intent to Prepare EIS Scoping Prepare and Release DEIS Review Period Public Hearing Agency Review Prepare and Issue Final EIS FAA - Issues Record of Decision 45 Day Comment Period Take Action 8. As airfield operating capacity is one of the major constraints at Sea -Tac, the Master Plan Update will examine a number of options for a new parallel runway, including runway lengths, spacing between runways and threshold staggering (the placement of runway ends relative to the existing runway ends). 9. The Puget Sound Regional Council will be conducting a Major Supplemental • Airport Feasibility and Siting Study at the same time that the Port of Seattle is conducting the Sea -Tac Airport Master Plan Update. Dec. 23, 1993 IV. ALTERNATIVES TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE EIS 1. The following alternatives for meeting the Sea-Tac air travel demand and capacity problems will be evaluated in the EIS: • Alternative modes of transportation (Bus, rail, auto, boat/barge) • Utilization of other airports (system management) ▪ Existing airports in the Region ▪ New airport(s) • Alternative expansion of facilities at Sea-Tac, including runway options Activity management (demand management) - Pricing mechanisms • Gate controls ▪ Others, as identified. Do-Nothing/No-Build , . .• „ • • • ' ' • • . - 6 - • 5. A number of studies have been undertaken in the last few years concerning existing and long -term aviation requirements of the Puget Sound Region and the ability of the region to handle the projected demand. These studies demonstrated that: ▪ There is an extensive bad weather2' related capacity constraint at Sea -Tac. Some facts about this problem are listed below: During bad weather, the number of aircraft that can land is reduced from 60 arrivals per hour to 32-40 arrivals; During peak hours, and in deteriorating weather conditions, arrival demand exceeds arrival capacity ; and Current direct costs of delay to the airlines at Sea -Tac are estimated at $120 million per year. • As aviation demand grows, delay and congestion at Sea -Tac will increase: • Sea -Tac's current capacity is estimated at 380,000 annual aircraft operations. The 1993 Flight Plan Study results projected that passenger levels could grow to 25 million annual passengers with 411,000 aircraft operations by the year 2000. Passenger levels could reach 45 million passengers per year by 2020 with 524,000 annual aircraft operations. Direct costs to the airlines associated with delay are projected to approach $300 million by the year 2000. 6. The Puget Sound Regional Council/Port of Seattle Flight Plan Study was undertaken to evaluate possible alternatives for addressing regional aviation needs. Following extensive regional review of the Flight Plan Study, the Puget Sound Regional Council adopted an updated regional airport system plan (Resolution A- 93 -03). This resolution recommended " that the region should pursue vigorously, as the preferred alternative, a major supplemental airport and a third runway at Sea - Tac.... ". The objective of the Sea -Tac Master Plan Update and the EIS is to identify and assess alternatives that will address Sea -Tac's bad weather operating capacity problem and other airfield, terminal, and landside facility improvements needed for meeting the regional air travel needs through the year 2020. Weather conditions reduce the arrival capacity up to 45 percent of the time. Dec: 23,193 -4- III. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSI AND NEED 1. Seattle- Tacoma International Airport is a primary air transportation gateway of the Puget Sound Region, the State of Washington and the entire Pacific Northwest. The Airport is the 8th largest U.S. international gateway to Asia and Europe. 2. Sea -Tac is currently ranked as the country's 23 busiest airport.! Air service is provided by: 22 domestic scheduled and charter passenger airlines 8 International foreign flag commercial carriers 14 cargo carriers The Airport provides service to 137 cities in the U.S. and 32 foreign destinations. 3. In 1970, Sea -Tac served 4.6 million passengers and approximately 151,000 aircraft operations (landings and takeoffs). By 1992, passenger levels increased 291 percent to 18 million passengers on 346,000 operations. 4. Exhibit 1 illustrates the current layout of Seattle - Tacoma International Airport which consists of : Two parallel runways (11,900 feet long and 9,425 feet long) spaced 800 feet apart from centerline to centerline A 75 gate passenger terminal consisting of 4 concourses and 2 satellite terminals 8,300 stall parking garage • Ground access roadways (a limited access freeway connected to Interstate 5 and Interstate 405, via State Highway 518). 16 air cargo buildings Other support facilities Sea -Tac is the 23rd busiest airport in the US in terms of total passengers. However, it is the 16th busiest airport in terms of cargo tonnage served. Source: 1992 Airport Operator Council International - North American. Dec. 23, 1993 - 3 - V. 1► Lk/ : I I. u ► I. In accordance with NEPA and SEPA, the EIS shall consist of the following elements: Purpose and Need for the development Alternatives Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Noise Land Use - - Social Impacts Health Impacts Socio- Economic Impacts Air Quality Water Quality DOT Section 4(f) Lands - Historic Sites Utilities and Public Services Biotic Communities (Plants & Animals) Surface Transportation Environmental Consequences - other considerations Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna Wetlands Floodplains Earth Coastal Zone Management and Coastal Barriers Wild and Scenic Rivers Prime and Unique Farmland Energy Supply and Natural Resources Light Emissions Aesthetics Solid and Hazardous Waste Construction Noise, Land Use, Social and Socio - economic, Human Health, Water Resources, Construction, Earth, Surface Transportation and Air Quality are considered key issues. Categories such as Prime and Unique Farmland and Wild and Scenic Rivers are not expected to be affected by development at Sea -Tac and would, if confirmed, be treated in less detail. Mitigation measures will be developed for significant adverse impacts created by the alternatives. Dec: 23, 1993 _ - 7 - UiryatcblhnUengc c3 mosso r -A • P s C S ?.'JS:6 RZ. FT7'i•= ;Sn .. °.'3•". :.+bw2•.° �''` '�,' .`..:.. .. .. >, :.. c. - ,+.. °�'. �v 9: :L':."''' C'h': ss;F•y�; ...6�g .o +r.a.tv�F,� 5"0 .. t` ....... • ■ e� I MEM= 1.11111■ - iii AIM= r Seattle - Tacoma International Airport , • General Airport Area ELIOT R. CUTLER JEFFREY L. STANFIELD SHEILA D. JONES PAIGE E. REFFE PERRY M. ROSEN JAMES H. HOLT PETER J. KIRSCH BYRON KEITH HUFFMAN, JR BARRY CONATY DAVID F. GOOSSEN• WILLIAM G. MALLEY• DANA C. NIFOSI MICHELLE B. NOWLIN• BARBARA PALEY THOMAS D. ROTH J. BARTON SEITZ NOT ADMITTED IN D.C. CUTLER 8c STANFIELD 700 FOURTEENTH STREET, N. W. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005 TELEPHONE: (202) 624 -8400 FACSIMILE: (202) 624 -8410 THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY WORE PRODUCT AND ATTORNEY - CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS M E M O R A N D U M TO: Executive Committee AIRPORT COMMUNITIES COALITION FROM: CUTLER & STANFIELD DATE: February 24, 1994 1825 BROADWAY DENVER, COLORADO 80202 TELEPHONE: (303) 592-4200 FACSIMILE: (303) 592 -4205 RE: Comments on the Scope of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Expansion of Seattle - Tacoma International Airport Enclosed you will find three copies of the comments that we submitted on behalf of the Cities and the ACC on the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed expansion of Seattle - Tacoma International Airport. Copies of the comments have been sent by overnight mail to the Northwest Mountain Region Office of the Federal Aviation Administration in Renton and to the Port of Seattle. We also have sent copies of the comments to the Puget Sound Regional Council, the RCAA, AIRTRAC, Representatives Greg Fisher and Ruth Fisher, Congressman Mike Kreidler and TAMS. If . you need any additional copies, please let us know. Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS. AIRPORT COMMUNITIES COALITION Executive Committee CITY OF BURIEN Mayor Arun G. Jhaveri 13838 First Avenue South Burien, Washington 98168 (206) 241 -4647 CITY OF DES MOINES Mayor Richard T. Kennedy 21630 11th Avenue South Des Moines, Washington 98198 (206) 878 -4595 CITY OF NORMANDY PARK Mayor Robert E. Davis 801 S.W. 174th Street Normandy Park, Washington 98166 (206) 248 -7603 CITY OF TUKWILA Mayor John W. Rants 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 1 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 A. The Factual Foundation for the EIS 5 1. The Necessity for Integrating the Puget Sound Regional Council Planning Process into the EIS 5 2. The Importance of the PSRC Resolution in Determining the Scope of the EIS 9 B. The Purpose of Scoping Under NEPA and SEPA 10 1. The FAA Must Independently Fulfill its NEPA Obligations 10 •2. The Port May Choose to Rely Upon Its Prior SEPA EIS 14 C. Summary of the Proper Scope of the EIS 16 11. PURPOSE AND NEED 18 A. Statement of Need for the Proposed SEA Expansion Project 21 1. The FAA's Statement of Need 21 2. The Port's Statement of Need 23 B. Data Supporting the Need for the Proposed Project 26 C. The Statement of Purpose for the Proposed Project 28 1. The FAA's Purpose for the Proposed Project 31 2. The Port's Purpose for the Proposed Project 32 III. CONNECTED, CUMULATIVE AND SIMILAR ACTIONS 34 A. Planned Improvements to Land -Side Facilities 37 Pagel Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS B. Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program and the Mediation Agreement 39 C. The Four Post Plan 43 D. The Washington State Air Transportation Commission (AIRTRAC) 44 E. City of SeaTac Zoning 46 IV. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES MANDATED BY NEPA AND SEPA 48 A. Scope of Alternatives Which Must Be Addressed Under NEPA 48 B. Scope of Alternatives Which Must Be Addressed Under SEPA 51 C. The EIS Must Satisfy Both SEPA and NEPA 54 D. Categories of Alternatives to Be Examined 55 1. Development of A New Air Carrier Airport 56 2. Construction or Use of Reliever Airports 57 3. Adoption of Demand Management and System Management Programs and Imposition of Use Restrictions at SEA 65 4. Development of Alternative Transportation Modes 66 5. Alternative Runway Locations and Configurations 67 6. No- Action Alternative 68 7. Alternatives to Connected and Similar Actions Associated With the Proposed Action 69 V. IMPACTS WHICH MUST BE EXAMINED IN THE EIS 71 A. Direct and Indirect Impacts 71 1. Noise 71. Page ii . •••••••••-•-• Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS 2. Land Use 84 3. Wetlands 86 4. Air Space 90 5. Air Quality 91 6. Surface Transportation 94 7. Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act and Section 509 of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 95 8. Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources 100 9. Water Quality 101 10. Social and Inducted Socioeconomic Impacts 102 11. Endangered and Threatened Species and Biotic Communities 103 12. Safety 104 B. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 105 VI. CONCLUSION 108 Page 111 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS EXHIBITS 1. Statements of Mayor Arun G. Jhaveri of Burien, Mayor Richard T. Kennedy of Des Moines, Mayor Robert Davis of Normandy Park and Councilmember Dorothy De Rodas of Tukwila (Feb. 10, 1994). 2. Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and to conduct Scoping for Seattle- Tacoma International Airport, Seattle, WA, 59 Fed. Reg. 645 (1994). 3. Puget Sound Regional Council Interlocal Agreement for Regional Planning of the Central Puget Sound Area (Mar. 11, 1993). 4. Puget Sound Regional Council Resolution A -93 -03 (Apr. 29, 1993). 5. A.S. Harris, Review of Community Responses to Changes in Noise Exposure (Nov. 1991). Pape iv Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS COMMENTS BY THE THE AIRPORT COMMUNITIES COALITION CITY OF BURIEN, WASHINGTON CITY OF DES MOINES, WASHINGTON CITY OF NORMANDY PARK, WASHINGTON, AND CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON on the Proper Scope of the Environmental Impact Statement for a Proposed Development at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport I. INTRODUCTION The cities of Burien, Des Moines, Normandy Park and Tukwila, Washington individually, and collectively as the Airport Communities Coalition ("ACC"), 1/ submit these comments on the proper scope of the environmental impact statement ( "EIS ") to be prepared jointly by the Federal Aviation Administration ( "FAA ") and the Port of Seattle (the "Port") for the proposed expansion of Seattle- Tacoma International Airport ( "SEA" or the "Airport ").?' On January 5, 1994, the FAA published its Notice of Intent to prepare this EIS.3' 1 -/ The Airport Communities Coalition ( "ACC ") is a voluntary association of local governmental entities created and established pursuant to the provisions of state law and chapter 39.34 of the Revised Code of Washington. 21 In addition to these Comments, written and oral comments on the scope of the EIS vv ere submitted by the cities of Burien, Des Moines, Normandy Park and Tukwila individually and on behalf of the ACC at the FAA's public scoping meeting held at the Seattle- Tacoma International Airport on February 10, 1994. Copies of the statements of Mayor Arun G. Jhaveri of Burien, Mayor Richard T. Kennedy of Des Moines, Mayor Robert E. Davis of Normandy Park and Councilmember Dorothy De Rodas of Tukwila on the scope of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement are attached to these Comments as Exhibit 1. 3/ 59 Fed. Reg. 645 (1994) (attached as Exhibit 2 to these Comments). Page 1 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS The Port and the FAA assert that the EIS will be prepared pursuant to both the National Environmental Policy Act ( "NEPA ")1/ and the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ( "SEPA ").6I Each statute imposes similar, yet distinct requirements for the proper scope of the EIS. NEPA "declares a broad national commitment to protecting and promoting environmental quality. "8' By enacting NEPA, Congress recognized the critical importance of environmental concerns to the well -being and development of our nation and its citizens. Accordingly, NEPA mandates a detailed and searching study and consideration of the direct and indirect impacts of proposed projects and their alternatives, as well as the relationship of short -term projects to long -term productivity. This process is intended to "create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans. " 2' To implement this policy, NEPA directs that, to the fullest extent possible: (API agencies of the Federal Government shall - (C) include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on- (i) the environmental impact of the proposed action, (ii) any adverse environmental effects which can not be avoided should the proposal be implemented, (iii) alternatives to the proposed action, 4/ 6/ 6/ 7/ 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et sea. Chapter 43.21 C RCW. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S 332, 348 (1989) (citations omitted). 42 U.S.C. § 4331(a). Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS (iv) the relationship between local short -term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long- term productivity, and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented .2/ The regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality ( "CEQ ")9' and of the FAA12' describe an EIS as "an action- forcing device to insure that the policies and goals [of NEPA] are infused into the ongoing programs and actions of the Federal Government.nl " The CEQ and FAA regulations state that an EIS shall provide full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts and shall inform decisionmakers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment.v As the Supreme Court recently stated: [S]imply by focusing the agency's attention on the environmental consequences of a proposed project, NEPA ensures that important effects will not be overlooked or underestimated only to be discovered after resources have been committed or the die otherwise cast.13' =' § 4332. 9/ 40 C.F.R. § 1500 et sea. ' °' U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Aviation Admin. Order No. 5050.4A, Airport Environmental Handbook (1985) ( "Order 5050.4A "); U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Aviation Admin., Order No. 1050.1 D, Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (1986) ( "Order 1050.1 D "). ''1/ 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1; Order 5050.4A 1 71. 12' 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1; Order 5050.4A 1 71. ' -3/ Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. at 349 (citations omitted). Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS SEPA is based upon the recognition that "each person has a fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful environment and that each person has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation ... of the environment. "1 -4I Similar to NEPA, SEPA requires governmental agencies within Washington to prepare a "detailed statement" or EIS, analyzing among other things, the environmental impacts of recommendations, proposals and other major actions "significantly affecting the quality of the environment.i15/ This requirement is applicable not only to state agencies, but also to municipalities, counties, port districts and other political subdivisions of the State.lm The EIS is the central, most valuable, tangible, and frequently contested SEPA requirement. The EIS is to be regarded not as an end, in itself, but as a means of integrating SEPA's policies into the actions and agendas of state and local agencies. The EIS, by providing environmental information for agency decisionmakers and interested citizens, is designed to foster government actions consonant with SEPA's policies; moreover, review and comment by interested citizens and agencies during the EIS preparation process should result in more reliable final impact statements .... [T]he purpose of the EIS is more than mere disclosure, rationalization or justification; it is to be used by agency officials in making decisions on proposed actions.11 —v 14! 161 RCW 43.21 C.020(3). I� 43.21C.030(2)(c). 121 Ij 43.21C.030(2). Actions taken by municipalities and port districts that may trigger compliance with SEPA include the adoption of comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances. ate WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(b)(ii). 3! Richard L. Settle, The Washington State Environmental Policy Act: Legal and Policy Analysis § 14, at 141, 144 -45 (1991) (citations omitted). Page 4 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS One significant difference between NEPA and SEPA is that SEPA establishes not only procedural requirements for government decisionmaking, but also substantive standards for the protection of human health and the environment.'' —e/ SEPA's directive that "the policies, regulations, and laws of the State of Washington" be "interpreted and administered in accordance with [SEPA's] policies" has sweeping effect. At the very least any interpretive or administrative doubts about all state policies, laws, and regulations must be resolved on the basis of SEPA's policies; arguably the provision has universal amendatory effect, engrafting SEPA's policies onto all state law.19/ Although SEPA does not require that the least environmentally damaging alternative be chosen, it prohibits an "unreasonable [choice of] environmental harm. Thus, actions involving unreasonable tradeoffs of environmental values or failure to require reasonable mitigation measures should be judicially invalidated.n20' A. The Factual Foundation for the EIS 1. The Necessity for Integrating the Puget Sound Regional Council Planning Process Into the EIS The FAA's Notice of Intent states that the Port will act as a joint lead agency with the FAA in the preparation of the EIS.21' An EIS of proper scope must, in addition, include the Puget Sound Regional Council and encompass its contemporaneous planning process for a supplemental airport. 18/ 19/ See. e.a., RCW 43.21C.02012), 030.11). Richard L. Settle, supra note 17, § 18(a) at 222 -23 (footnote omitted). 20� at 235 -36. L' 59 Fed. Reg. 645. See also Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Fed. Aviation Admin. and the Port of Seattle, Seattle, Washington (Sept. 1993), setting forth the terms of the agreement regarding joint preparation of the EIS. Page 5 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS The Puget Sound Regional Council ( "PSRC ") is a regional planning agency made up of King, Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap Counties and their incorporated cities and towns joined by an interlocal agreement pursuant to Washington state law. 2) The PSRC is designated under federal and state laws as the Metropolitan Planning Organization and Regional Transportation Planning Organization for the central Puget Sound region and is responsible for adopting and maintaining regional growth management and transportation strategies for the region 22/ The PSRC is the agency authorized under state law to develop and adopt a regional transportation plan, and to certify that the transportation elements of local comprehensive plans conform to requirements of state law and are consistent with the regional transportation plan.2 / The PSRC also is empowered under state law to ensure that all transportation projects that have a significant impact upon regional facilities or services are consistent with the regional transportation plan As both the regional transportation planner and the arbiter of the consistency of any single plan with regional plans, the PSRC plays a pivotal role in the development of air transportation facilities, because any specific proposal for expanding regional air transportation capacity must be incorporated into the regional transportation plan. In 1989, the PSRC entered into an agreement with the Port to establish a joint planning process for developing a regional air carrier system plan which, among other things, would provide input to the PSRC for updating and amending the aviation component of its regional transportation plan -- the Regional Airport System Plan.281 The agreement led to 22/ Puget Sound Regional Council Interlocal Agreement for Regional Planning of the Central Puget Sound Area (Mar. 11, 1993) ( "Interlocal Agreement ") § V (attached as Exhibit 3 to these Comments). 23/ 24/ 26/ I� 4 VII(A)(3), (4). See also PSRC Res. A -91 -01 (Mar. 13, 1991); RCW 47.80.020. RCW 47.80.030(1)(a), (b); j 36.70A.070(6). See also Interlocal Agreement § V1121). RCW 47.80.030(1), (2). 28/ Port of Seattle and Puget Sound Council of Governments Interagency Agreement for Long Term Air Carrier System Planning (May 23, 1989) at 2. On September 30, 1991, the Puget Sound Council of Governments was dissolved, and on October 1, 1991, the PSRC was formed in its place. PSRC Res. A- 91 -01. The PSRC thereafter assumed the Puget Sound Council of Governments' role in the Interagency Agreement with the Port. Page 6 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS preparation -- by the Port and the PSRC -- of a nonproject (or programmatic) environmental impact statement (the "Flight Plan EIS ") pursuant to SEPA 2'-' The Flight Plan EIS examined the long -term needs for increased air transportation capacity in the Puget Sound region and briefly reviewed the environmental effects of a number of conceptual alternates for meeting those needs' Subsequently, the PSRC General Assembly adopted a resolution ( "PSRC resolution ") amending its Regional Airport System Plan to provide for the development of a major supplemental airport and a third runway at SEA.22/ The PSRC resolution declined to approve the construction of a third runway at SEA until an environmental assessment -- including financial and market feasibility studies -- demonstrates that a supplemental airport would not be feasible and would not eliminate the need for the third runway.w The PSRC recently initiated a planning and feasibility study for a supplemental airport.31� The PSRC resolution would not authorize construction of the third runway at SEA unless two conditions are satisfied: demand management and system management programs are pursued and, achieved, or determined to be infeasible, based on independent evaluation; and 2221 RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(C). According to SEPA rules, "Enlonproject' means actions which are different or broader than a single site specific project, such as plans, policies, and programs." WAC 197 -11 -774. The Flight Plan EIS was not prepared pursuant to NEPA and would not comply with federal requirements for a NEPA EIS. 28f Puget Sound Regional Council and Port of Seattle, The Flight Plan Project, Final Environmental Impact Statement (1992) ( "Flight Plan EIS "). 20/ 30/ PSRC Res. A -93 -03 (Apr. 29, 1993) (attached as Exhibit 4 to these Comments). IY. 31/ New York Enoineerino Firm to Lead Suoolemental Airoort Study, Daily Journal of Commerce (Seattle, WA) Jan. 26, 1994. The study, to be performed by TAMS Consultants, Inc., will, among other things, identify potential supplementary airport sitels) in the Puget Sound region and evaluate whether the development of such sitels) for commercial air service can eliminate the need for a third runway at SEA." TAMS Consultants, Inc. Statement of Qualifications to Conduct a Major Supplemental Airport Feasibility Study (Dec. 20, 1993) at 4. Page 7 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS ► noise reduction performance objectives are scheduled, pursued and achieved based on independent evaluation, and based on measurement of real noise impacts.ul Therefore, until the PSRC's study demonstrates that a supplemental airport would not obviate the need for an additional runway at SEA, and until the Port has complied with the other two conditions in the PSRC resolution, the construction of another runway at SEA would not be consistent with state Iaw.a2/ Only fulfillment of aII the conditions in the PSRC resolution would provide the legal foundation upon which any expansion of SEA may proceed. Consequently, the Port does not have the legal authority to undertake the project until such time as it can demonstrate that the specified conditions have been satisfied and until the PSRC conclusively determines that a supplemental airport would not eliminate the need for the third runway at SEA. The Port's governing body publicly has recognized the necessity for obtaining final PSRC approval before the Port may begin to implement its proposed expansion plan. The Port Commissioners have stated they would abide by the final decision of the PSRC with respect to the permissibility of undertaking an expansion of SEA.-3s 3s/ PSRC Res. A -93 -03 (emphasis added). 33/ See. e.a., RCW 47.80.030(1)(a), (b), (2); 36.70A.070(6). See also Interlocal Agreement § IV(21). 34/ David Schaefer, Port Won't Defy Elected Officials on Runway, The Seattle Times /Seattle Post - Intelligencer, Mar. 21, 1993 at B1. Port of Seattle commissioners, although overwhelmingly in favor of expanding Seattle- Tacoma International Airport, say they will live with the decision of regional elected officials even if those officials recommend against a third runway. [ Poort commissioners said they doubt they could defy the Puget Sound Regional Council if it recommends against expanding the airport ... . 'We are a participant in a process,' said Port Commission chairman Gary Grant. 'We would abide by the recommendation of the regional council and not pursue the (third runway) ....' Page 8 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS I.. -. conditions. Most importantly, it must integrate the PSRC's supplemental airport planning process into the entire fabric of the Port /FAA EIS. B. The Purpose of Scooing Under NEPA and SEPA 1. The FAA Must Independently Fulfill Its NEPA Obligations The EIS to be prepared jointly by the FAA and the Port must satisfy the requirements of both NEPA and SEPA. The FAA, moreover, must ensure that the scope of the EIS adequately addresses all of the agency's obligations under NEPA, regardless of the extent to which SEPA may authorize a narrower scope. NEPA directs federal agencies to examine all environmental impacts of proposed projects, to develop and explore all reasonable alternatives to such actions, and to analyze the potential environmental impacts of those alternatives.a' While the Port is a joint lead agency with the FAA in the preparation of the EIS, the FAA nevertheless has an independent responsibility to comply with the requirements of NEPA with respect to the Port's requested approval for expansion of SEA. Although it need not conduct a "crystal ball inquiry" into every remote impact of the proposed project on the environment, the FAA must identify all foreseeable environmental impacts,38/ and conduct the research necessary to develop the information necessary for a thorough evaluation of these impacts consistent with the exacting requirements of NEPA. No federal funds may be authorized for the proposed Airport expansion until (1) the FAA has prepared and approved a final EIS; (2) the Environmental Protection Agency has published notice in the Federal Register of the availability of the final EIS to the public; and (3) thirty days have elapsed following such publication.37/ 36/ 42 U.S.C. § 4332. ' -°' Town of Huntinaton v. Marsh, 859 F.2d 1134, 1141 (2d Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 1296 (1990) (citing Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Coro. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 435 U.S. 519, 551 (1978)). 3' 40 C.F.R. § 1506.10(b); Order 5050.4A 1 96h. Page 10 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS The FAA must "independently evaluate the information submitted and shall be responsible for its accuracy. "22' The FAA's legal obligation to prepare the environmental impact statement may not be delegated to, or fulfilled by, a project sponsor, even if the sponsor is a joint lead agency.39' There may be an exchange of information between the sponsor of a project and a federal agency in connection with the preparation of an environmental impact statement or of an environmental assessment,`` —°' but the FAA is required to examine the assumptions and conclusions underlying any analysis submitted by the sponsor.41' The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has explained that [i]n reviewing the role of outside consultants in the preparation of environmental impact statements, this court has specifically ruled that an agency may not reflexively rubber stamp a statement prepared by others.... If the [agency] independently and carefully reviewed [the outside consultant's report] and verified its data, then the [agency] properly performed its regulatory function. The FAA's independence in preparing the EIS is particularly important in this matter because the Port is both the project sponsor and the joint lead agency and because the Port has similar, but distinct obligations to fulfill under its own state environmental policy statute. Although the EIS will be prepared pursuant to both NEPA and SEPA, FAA regulations provide that the more restrictive requirements of the two statutes must prevail.'`12/ For example, 3e/ 40 C.F.R. § 1506.5(a). See also Order 5050.4A 1 77b. 39/ Order 5050.4A 1 74 et seq. 440/ 40 C.F.R. § 1506.5(a). 41/ Sierra Club v. Marsh, 701 F. Supp. 886, 912 (D. Me. 1988), vacated on other wounds, 872 F.2d 497 (1st Cir. 1989). 42/ Save Our Wetlands. Inc. v. Sands, 711 F.2d 634, 642 -43 (5th Cir. 1983). 43/ "Where State laws or local ordinances have environmental impact statement requirements in addition to but not in conflict with those in NEPA, Federal agencies shall cooperate in fulfilling these requirements as well as those of Federal laws so that one document will comply with all aoolicabte laws." 40 C.F.R. § 1505.2(c) (emphasis added). Page 11 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS under the concept of tiering, SEPA regulations44' permit the Port to narrow the scope of a site - specific EIS if a nonproject (or programmatic) EIS has been prepared previously A The FAA has no such authority to circumscribe the scope of an EIS for which it has not previously prepared a programmatic EIS under NEPA. Consequently, the FAA must ensure that the EIS strictly adheres to NEPA scoping requirements to avoid even the appearance of inappropriately narrowing the scope of the EIS for the proposed expansion of SEA. Therefore, the EIS must critically examine and independently evaluate the factual bases upon which the Flight Plan EIS rests, the Flight Plan EIS's conclusions with respect to the regional need for the proposed expansion project, and the Flight Plan EIS's evaluation of alternatives and the environmental effects of a preferred alternative and other alternative courses of action. The CEQ and the FAA have described scoping as "an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed" in an EIS. °—e� The purpose of the scoping process is not to reach any conclusions as to the environmental desirability of a particular proposal. Rather, the goals of scoping are to identify the public and agency concerns; clearly define the environmental issues and alternatives to be examined in the EIS including the elimination of nonsignificant issues; identify related issues which originate from separate legislation, regulation, or Executive Order . . .; and identify state and local agency requirements which must be addressed :4x CEQ regulations state that "[ s]cope consists of the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered in an environmental impact statement.n41/ The regulations further explain that to determine the proper scope of an EIS, three types of actions, three types of iv Chapter 197 -11 WAC. 46/ WAC 197 -11 -442, -443. '` —°Y 40 C.F.R. § 1501.7; Order 5050.4A 1 74a. CEQ Memorandum on Implementation of NEPA Regulations, 48 Fed. Reg. 34,263 (1983), reorinted in, Env't Rep. (BNA) 41:2841 ( "CEO Memorandum"). "' 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25; see also Order 5050.4A 1 74a. Page 12 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS alternatives and three types of impacts must be considered. These include (1) connected, cumulative and similar actions; (2) no action, other reasonable courses of action and mitigated action alternatives; and (3) direct, indirect and cumulative impacts.-`' As will be explained in detail in these comments, the FAA's scoping obligations necessitate an EIS that examines several critical actions which may be outside the legal purview of the Port and which may be outside the requirements imposed by SEPA. The CEO. has stated clearly that scoping is a critical element in the environmental process because of its potential to "have a profound positive effect on environmental analyses, on the impact statement process itself, and ultimately on decisionmaking.limi NEPA regulations place a "significant responsibility on agencies and the public alike during the scopirig process to identify all significant issues and reasonable alternatives to be addressed in the EIS.n61v It is in this spirit of public responsibility and interest in the long - range concerns of their citizens -- as well as those of the entire Puget Sound region -- that the ACC member cities submit these comments. Based on the information presently available to it, the ACC has endeavored to present in these comments the major environmental issues which must be addressed in the EIS. The ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the EIS adequately addresses all the significant environmental issues associated with the proposed project rests with the FAA. As the joint lead agency,521 it "can not shed its responsibility to assess each significant impact or alternative even if one is found after scoping. "s3/ 60/ 61/ 40 C.F.R. 4 1508.25. CEQ Memorandum, Scoping Guidance (Apr. 30, 1981), 17 Envtl. L. Rep. 35,031. CEQ Memorandum, Env't Rep. (BNA) at 41:2841. / The fact that the Port is the other joint lead agency is irrelevant to the FAA's independent obligation to ensure the integrity of the EIS, procedurally and substantively. 63/ CEQ Memorandum, Scoping Guidance, 17 Envtl. L. Rep. at 35,032. Page 13 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS 2. The Port Mav Choose to Rely Upon Its Prior SEPA EIS Scoping plays a more limited role under SEPA.S" The primary objective of scoping is to narrow the scope of the EIS so that it focuses on probable adverse environmental impacts which are significant.65' "The responsible official shall consult with agencies and the public to identify such impacts and limit the scope of an environmental impact statement. "59/ The lead agency shall narrow the scope of every EIS to the probable significant adverse impacts and reasonable alternatives, including mitigation measures. For example, if there are only two or three significant impacts or alternatives, the EIS shall be focused on those.57 Unlike NEPA, SEPA regulations do not require that connected, cumulative or similar actions be included in the scope of a site - specific EIS that has been preceded by a nonproject (programmatic) EIS.58' By definition, the level and detail of analysis required for a nonproject EIS -- such as the Flight Plan EIS -- is less than that for a project- specific EIS.5s' A nonproject EIS is required to analyze the environmental impacts of "alternative means of 6—`' $@e RCW 43.21C.031; WAC 197 -11 -408. 661 RCW 43.21 C.031; WAC 197 -11 -408. 66/ RCW 43.21C.031. 67/ WAC 197-11-40811 ). 66/ SEPA allows for the preparation of EISs -- such as the Flight Plan EIS -- on broad programs that do not contemplate a specific government action. Nonproject EISs are prepared pursuant to "phased review," under which "Iblroader environmental documents may be followed by narrower documents ... that incorporate prior general discussion by reference and concentrate solely on the issues specific to that part of the proposal." WAC 197- 11- 060(5)lb). 6 ° r ; ? g g j In preparing nonproject EISs, an agency "shall have more flexibility ... because there is normally Tess detailed information available on fa program or policy's) environmental impacts and on any subsequent project proposals." j Page 14 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS accomplishing a stated objective," with such analysis being "limited to a general discussion of the impacts of alternate proposals.""/ Another distinction between NEPA and SEPA is that SEPA places no time limits on scoping. In fact, scoping may continue indefinitely, even during the EIS preparation.8 J Scoping is never final until the agency has completed action on the proposal, and the scope may be revised to reflect major modifications of the proposal, changed circumstances and new information affecting the proposal and its significant impacts.22' In Tight of the flexible scoping process contemplated by SEPA, the ACC and its constituent cities reserve the right to submit additional scoping comments whenever it appears that project modifications, changed circumstances or new information warrant. The distinction between the NEPA and SEPA scoping process is crucially important here because of the Port's prior nonproject Flight Plan EIS. While the ACC reserves any objections to the adequacy of the Flight Plan EIS under SEPA, it is abundantly clear that the Port intends to rely upon that document to circumscribe its SEPA obligations. If the Flight Plan EIS meets the requirements of SEPA (an issue about which the ACC does not opine in these comments), the Port's reliance on that document would be entirely appropriate under SEPA. At the same time, any such reliance would be a direct and unquestionable violation of NEPA. Since the EIS at issue is supposedly being prepared pursuant to NEPA -- as well as SEPA -- the FAA may not rely upon the Flight Plan EIS. eon id, 197-11-44212), (4). I.5 1 L, 197 -11- 408(7). sa' 197 -11- 408(5). Pape 15 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS C. Summary of the Proper Scope of the EIS As these comments will demonstrate, the statutory and regulatory requirements of both NEPA and SEPA will not be legally fulfilled unless the EIS to be prepared jointly by the Port and the FAA: I • broadly views the project as responding to the need for air transportation capacity improvements in the Puget Sound region through at least 2020; [ • integrates the ongoing cumulative and connected actions of all of the major parties -- the FAA, the Port and the PSRC -- into the entire fabric of the document;es/ 1 . • defines the need for the project based upon the same factual data and projections used in the PSRC's supplemental airport study; • defines the need for the project and analyzes each alternative based on the assumption that PSRC's supplemental airport study has demonstrated the need for a third runway at SEA; • bases the EIS analysis on the assumption that the Port has complied with all the conditions of the PSRC resolution: • evaluating the likelihood of the Port's meeting the conditions; and • assessing the effect of having met tie conditions on the existing projections of need for the proposed expansion of SEA. l • narrowly focuses the purpose of the project to meet the need; ( • includes in the discussion of connected and cumulative actions the PSRC's ( supplemental airport planning process, the Port's Master Plan Update, the 2- -3' It also should be noted that legislation presently is pending in the Washington State Legislature that would limit the authority of the Port to site and develop airport facilities on its own and would give the state a substantially larger role in planning, building and operating airports. See. e.o., Joseph Turner, Bioaer State Role in Siting Airports on Capitol Agenda, The Morning News (Tacoma, WA), Jan. 24, 1994. In addition, the Washington State Air Transportation Commission ("AIRTRAC ") -- created in 1990 for the purpose of developing a state -wide air transportation strategy -- has released a report containing recommendations that could similarly affect the Port's authority to expand SEA. Page 16 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS Port's federally- approved Noise Compatibility Program; and the noise reduction conditions of the PSRC's resolution; ► discusses and independently analyzes a broad range of regional alternatives including, but not limited to, demand /system management actions, supplemental and replacement airports, and non -air transportation alternatives; and ► examines the environmental impacts of all alternatives giving particular consideration, pursuant to SEPA, to the (east environmentally harmful alternative and the imposition of mitigation requirements.°—`' e.� See, e. a., RCW 43.21C.03011), (211b1.060, WAC 197- 11- 660(111a)-(d1.: Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS 11. PURPOSE AND NEED Under both NEPA and SEPA, an essential element of an EIS is the statement articulating the "underlying purpose" and the "need to which the agency is responding" in the proposed action.85' In this context, the terms "purpose" and "need" have different meanings. A "need" is the lack of something requisite, desirable, or useful or a condition requiring relief. =8' "Purpose" is defined as an object or end to be achieved :E.' Consequently, in the preparation of an EIS, the two terms should be interpreted as complementary, but distinct. The discussion of purpose and need in the EIS for the proposed expansion of SEA should demonstrate the relationship between the need articulated in existing planning documents and the purpose of the proposed FAA action and FAA funding therefor. Each element of the statement of purpose and need plays a different role. For NEPA purposes, the statements of purpose and need are of critical importance. The statement of need must be developed first, because it frames and delimits the scope of alternatives in the EIS.eB' Moreover, the selection of the preferred federal action also is determined by this statement.w The statements of purpose and need have particular significance for establishing the proper scope of the EIS for the proposed expansion of SEA. This is an unusually —' 40 C.F.R. § 1502.13; WAC 197 -11- 440(4). ee' Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. ems' Id. eei Roosevelt Campobello Int'I Park Comm'n v. United States Envtl. Protection Agency, 684 F.2d 1041, 1047 (1st Cir. 1982). See also City of New York v. United States Deo't of Transp., 715 F.2d 732, 743 (2d Cir. 1983) ( "The scope of alternatives to be considered is a function of how narrowly or broadly one views the objective of an agency's proposed action. "), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1055 (1984) ; Trout Unlimited v. Morton, 509 F.2d 1276, 1286 (9th Cir. 1974) (alternatives must be "reasonably related" to statement of purpose). ° —°' The agency's preferred alternative also is the alternative which the agency believes would fulfill its statutory mission and responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, environmental, technical and other factors." CEQ Questions and Answers on National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 Fed. Reg. 18,026 (1981), reprinted in, Env't Rep. (BNA) 41:2701, 41:2702. Page 18 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS complicated project, in part because its development is dependent upon two planning processes which have yet to be completed. ► The Port is preparing a Master Plan Update for "a comprehensive airport development plan for the airside, landside, and terminal facilities needed to keep Seattle- Tacoma International Airport operating efficiently to the year 2020 and beyond." ► The PSRC is preparing a feasibility and planning study for the potential development of a supplemental airport site.21W The results of earlier planning processes, including the Flight Plan EIS and other regional and federal studies, clearly define the need for the present proposal in regional terms. The need is to meet the Puget Sound region's air transportation demands. Any discussion of the need for the Port's proposed expansion of SEA must build upon these studies and must explain how or why the Port and the FAA propose to attempt to meet the regional need at the SEA site. It is important to recognize that, in addition to completed planning studies on regional air transportation needs, the PSRC and Port studies are ongoing. Both of these planning processes have the potential to affect future decisions regarding the need for a third runway and other improvements at SEA. Moreover, the FAA must recognize that the need for the Port's proposal is contingent upon the adequate demonstration that (1) a supplemental airport would n_Qt obviate the need for a new runway at SEA, and (2) all feasible demand and system management and noise compatibility measures have been implemented at SEA. There has been widespread public, press, and governmental discussion about the aviation capacity problems of the Puget Sound area, specifically, and of the nation, generally.32/ The Port has stated that 7 91 Port of Seattle, Seattle- Tacoma International Airport, Request for Proposals, Airport Master Plan /New Runway Planning Project (1993) ( "Master Plan RFP ") at 1. 71/ 72/ Daily Journal of Commerce, supra note 31. See. e.a., U. S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Aviation Admin., DOT /FAA /ASC -93 -1, 1993 Aviation System Capacity Plan (1993) ("1993 Aviation System Capacity Plan "). Page 19 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS [t]he central Puget Sound region is faced with growing demand for commercial air transportation services and a limited capacity at the existing Seattle- Tacoma International Airport... . The purpose of the Flight Plan Project is to plan for the future air transportation needs of the central Puget Sound region through the year 2020 and beyond . ... Increasing demand without increasing airport capacity in the region will result in longer and longer delays for air travelers and ultimately will hurt the trade - oriented regional economy.231 While the Port's proposal for redeveloping SEA purports to be designed to address those problems, its own planning document demonstrates that the construction of an additional dependent runway at SEA will not meet projected capacity needs for 2020. 11 In fact, some estimates suggest that the addition of a third runway at SEA would be insufficient to meet air transportation demand in the Puget Sound region as early as 2005- 2010. In addition to a new runway at SEA, the FAA has proposed that its EIS examine projects and proposals included in an update of the SEA Master Plan, even though work on the Master Plan will proceed contemporaneously with preparation of the EIS.'-5' According to the Port's statements, the goal of the Master Plan Update is the assembly of a "comprehensive airport development plan for the airside, landside, and terminal facilities needed to keep Seattle- Tacoma International Airport operating efficiently to the year 2020 73/ Flight Plan EIS, at Introduction, 1 -2. 7 ' The Flight Plan EIS projects that SEA, even with a new dependent runway, would have sufficient capacity for a maximum of 41.8 million passengers and 480,000 operations annually while the Airport is expected to experience 524,000 operations and 45 million passengers by 2020. Flight Plan EIS at Table 1 -1, 1 -5. Moreover, the "Findings and Recommendations" of the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee (the joint Port/PSRC organization formed to carry out the initial evaluation of airport capacity and to make recommendations about airport alternatives) declares that "by itself, a third Sea -Tac runway would not be able to meet the capacity needs of our region to the year 2020." Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee (PSATC) Findings and Recommendations, reprinted in, Flight Plan EIS, App. A at A -9. 76' $gg Seattle- Tacoma International Airport Environmental Impact Statement Public Information Packet, Public Scoping meeting (Dec. 23, 1993) ( "EIS Public Information Packet ") at 1. See also Master Plan RFP at 7. Page 20 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS and beyond."zy An efficiently operating SEA, however, does not preclude the development of other regional transportation facilities which also may be able to respond to the identified need. A. Statement of Need for the Pr000sed SEA Expansion Project 1. The FAA's Statement of Need The statement of need should be an objective description of the reason that the project (not necessarily the federal action) is being pursued. For NEPA purposes, the underlying need must be examined without regard to the FAA's policy aims or statutory mission and especially without regard to the Port's desires."1/ Similarly, the NEPA statement of need must not be limited by the FAA's statutory mandate or its circumscribed role in reviewing and approving plans for airport projects. Once the need has been defined, an EIS must include alternative methods of satisfying the need, including those reasonable alternative means which lie outside the jurisdiction of the federal agency. An adequate discussion of alternatives must respond fully to the statement of need.2e1 Under NEPA, an EIS is adequate only if it examines all reasonable alternative ways of meeting the need for the proposed project.29/ In order to satisfy the legal standard under NEPA, the EIS for the proposed expansion of SEA must define need 76/ Master Plan RFP at 1. ' —" Coalition for Cannon Preservation v. Bowers, 632 F.2d 774 (9th Cir. 1980). See also Concerned About Trident v. Rumsfeld, 555 F.2d 817, 831 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (an agency should produce an EIS that observes "objective reasonableness" when evaluating the "concept" behind the action). ' -81 40 C.F.R. 1502.14; see also Natural Resources Defense Council v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827, 836 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (alternatives analysis must include reasonable actions to satisfy the need even if they lie beyond agency's jurisdiction). a' an Citizens Against Burlinoton v. Busev, 938 F.2d 190 (D.C. Cir. 1991). Page 21 1 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS I_ • to be the regional need for additional resources to serve demand for increased air transportation capacity at (east through the year 2020; I• to be the regional need to solve the weather limitations on the existing capacity at SEA;eo' I• to be based on an assumption that the Port has successfully instituted demand and system management programs at SEA, in compliance with the PSRC resolution;81' • to be based on an assumption that the PSRC will recommend against the development of a supplemental airport; and • to be based on an evaluation of the effect of legislation under consideration by the Washington State Legislature to authorize the Department of Transportation to undertake the siting and development of a new Puget Sound regional I airport .1a/ l_ The FAA may not adopt the Port's narrow self- interest as a basis for developing the agency's statement of need for the EIS.83' The FAA must take an objective look at the need for additional air transportation capacity in the Puget Sound region at least through 2020. The FAA's examination must assume that the Port can comply with the conditions in the PSRC's resolution, and it must assess the PSRC's study of a supplemental airport. II/ Weather conditions which allow for two arrival paths occur approximately 55 percent of the year. Flight Plan EIS at 2 -17. Under all other weather conditions, because of the proximity of the two runways, only a single aircraft arrival path is permitted at SEA. 5.111 Coffman Associates, Noise Exposure Map Update for Sea -Tac International Airport (1989)1 "NEM Update ") at 1 -4. As a result, 44 percent of the year airport capacity is restricted to that provided by a single runway. See also EIS Public Information Packet at 4 n.2. The EIS also must make a distinction between those periods when severe weather conditions preclude all operations at the Airport (and during which the addition of a third runway at SEA would be of no value), and those occasions when poor weather conditions merely restrict arrival or airport capacity. 81/ ezi PSRC Resolution A- 93 -03. See Joseph Turner, supra note 63. ° —a/ am Van Abbema v. Fornell, 807 F.2d 633, 638 (7th Cir. 1986) (NEPA requires that the discussion of alternatives be an evaluation of alternative means to accomplish the general goal of an action ... not an evaluation of the alternative means by which particular applicant can reach his goals. "). Page 22 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS Only then will the FAA properly be able to articulate a statement of need which reflects the agency's most compelling reasons for considering funding development of additional aviation capacity in the region. 2. The Port's Statement of Need In common with NEPA, SEPA places great importance on the statement of need, because the need for the project establishes the parameters of the alternatives that must be considered.8 ' In fact, SEPA regulations "deemphasize[l the proposal in favor of the agency objective . . . and alternative means of attaining that objective. "es' The first section of an EIS prepared pursuant to SEPA is comparative and emphasizes an impartial evaluation of alternative means of pursuing the proposal's objectives.e8' Therefore, SEPA regulations encourage agencies to describe public proposals in terms of their objectives rather than the agency's preferred courses of action.-Yv The Port previously has defined the need for the proposed expansion of SEA as the need for increased regional air transportation capacity to accommodate projected growth in passenger traffic and aircraft operations through the year 2020.861 It appears that the Port may rely in the EIS upon its own estimates of the need for additional capacity at SEA. For example, the Port has previously articulated the need for a _ third runway based upon the following critical forecasts. 841 eel 881 871 eel See WAC 197- 11- 440(5)(b). Richard L. Settle, supra note 17, 4 14 at 146 (citing WAC 197-11-44015), -784). See. e.a., WAC- 197- 11- 440(5)1c)(i), (v). jt 197- 11- 060(311a) liii) . ,$gg, Flight Plan EIS at 1 -2 to 1 -5, 2 -1 to 2 -16. Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS ► The number of origination passengers at SEA would grow to 15.03 million passengers in 2020, based on projections of economic growth in the Pacific NorthwestA ► Connecting passengers would remain approximately one -third of the total traffic.$° -' ► The number of passengers per aircraft operation would rise from 50 in 1988 to 95.7 in 2020.88 1" ► Commuter operations would decline as a percentage of total operations from nearly 42 percent currently to 23 percent in 2020.22' ► International operations would grow, but at a progressively slower rate, increasing 7 percent per year from 1988 to 1995, and 4 percent per year from 2010 to 2020.10J ► General aviation operations would equal 4 percent of total annual operations by the year 2020.25) ° - - °' 10, at 2 -9 to 2 -11. The number of destination passengers is assumed by the Port to equal the number of originating passengers. The total number of origination and destination passengers, therefore, is forecasted to equal approximately 30 million passengers. 1,.0_, at 2 -10. SEA is a small hub for several airlines including United and Alaska and their commuter carriers; its proportion of connecting to origination /destination traffic is relatively low for a hub airport. °—°' ki, at 2 -9. In the Flight Plan EIS connecting passengers were projected to equal: (1) 27 percent of the total number of passengers using commercial air carriers at SEA; (2) 44 percent of the total number of passengers using commuter airlines; (3) 50 percent of the total number of passenger flying to or from Canadian locations; and (4) 54 percent of the total number of passengers flying to or from international locations. tat; Peat Marwick Main & Co., Final Report, Phase I Forecasts - Flight Plan Study, Puget Sound Region 1990 at 46, Table 21 ( "Phase I Forecasts "). °" Flight Plan EIS at 2 -12. Consistent with industry trends that newer aircraft are larger than the older aircraft they replace, this projection was based on a forecast that, over time, the number of seats -per- aircraft- operation at SEA will increase. Phase I Forecasts at 45. °?' Flight Plan EIS at 2 -12. ° -3f Ifi, at 2 -9. °°' Phase I Forecasts at 46, Table 21. Page 24 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS Having defined the need for the proposed project in terms of Tong -term air transportation capacity in the Puget Sound region, the Port 'is required to evaluate each alternative means of meeting that need. Complicating the Port's task, however, is the fact that the PSRC's project approval and supplemental airport planning processes are superimposed on the Port's ability to plan for, and implement, its proposed SEA expansion project.86' The PSRC -- like the Port -- has defined the need as being regional in dimension and Tong -term in duration. However, the PSRC resolution sets conditions which must be met before the Port may proceed with its proposed expansion project i' These conditions significantly alter the status quo with respect to the calculation of need. Thus, in addition to being regional in perspective, the Port's statement of need must be based on projections of demand /capacity and other indicators of need after the successful institution of demand and system management programs at SEA. In addition, the Port must define need based on two diametrically opposed assumptions: (1) that the PSRC will recommend against the development of a supplemental airport; and (2) that the PSRC will recommend in favor of a supplemental airport. Finally, the Port's statement of need must evaluate the effect of legislation under consideration by the Washington State Legislature to authorize the. state Department of Transportation to undertake the siting and development of a new Puget Sound regional airportP Belt 4 I.A., supra. °21 Bigt 4 III.D., infr . Page 25. Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS B. Data Supporting the Need for the Proposed Project L_. The underlying need for the Port's proposal is to satisfy projected growth in aviation activity in the Puget Sound region in light of weather- related capacity constraints at SEA.ee' Both the Port and the FAA have prepared studies which project the growth in future aviation activity at SEA.' These studies, however, often reach vastly different conclusions based upon forecasts of the future demand and need for additional airport capacity, as illustrated in Table 1. °°/ EIS Public Information Packet at 4 n.2. See also supra note 80. See. e.a., Phase I Forecasts; Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee, Phase II: Development of Alternatives (1991) App. J; Flight Plan EIS at 2 -15, Table 2-4; 1993 Aviation System Capacity Plan. ; App. A at A -2, A -5, A -8, Tables A -2, A -3; Kurth & Company, Inc., Airline Market Potential and Operational Feasibility of Five Airport System Alternatives in the Puget Sound Region (1990): Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS ERNATIVE OPERATIONAL AND PASSENGER FORECASTS FOR SEATTLE - TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT: otat Pasesngsn or ?: Enptenemsnt Total Paassngsraor Enpinamants Total Passengers or Enp)anements Flight Plan EIS (1990) 411,000 25.4 million (total) 447,000 34 million (total) 524,000 45 million (total) SEA Update (1992) 419,000 492,000 563,000 FAA Draft (1992) 419,000 455,000 FAA Aviation System Capacity Plan (1991) 427,000 (FY) 12.7 million lenplen.) AIRTRAC Critique (1992) 25 -35 million (total) RCAA - Gibson Economics (1993) 340,000 9.9 million (enplen.) 452,000 17.6 million (enplan.) SOURCES: Right Plan EIS at 2 -14, Table 2-4 (for Flight Plan EIS, SEA Update and FAA Draft figures); U.S. Dap't of Transp., Fed. Aviation Admin., DOT /FAA /ASC -91 -1, 1991 -92 Aviation System Capacity Plan ('FAA Aviation System Capacity Plan"), Tab /es A -2 and A -3; Washington State Air Transp. Comm'n, Review of Flight Plan Demand and Capacity Analysis, Project ll(b) Rna/ Report (Oct. 31, 1992) at 36 -37 (' AIRTRAC Critique'); RCAA Report, Gibson Economics, Inc., Review of Right Plan Air Travel Demand Forecasts and Forecast Analysis Papers (Jan. 14, 1993) at 21 ('RCAA - Gibson Economics'). These figures represent approximations. Gibson projected operational totals only for air carrier and commuter operations - - 325,000 in 2000 and 431,900 in 2020. Air carrier and commuter operations combined are estimated to represent approximately 95.6 percent of total operations at SEA in both 2000 and 2020. Right Ran EIS at 2 -14, Table 2-4. Page 27 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS In order for the EIS statement of need to be defensible, the Port and the FAA must reconcile any differing forecasts and projections which form a basis for the articulated need for the project and which provide a justification for how the proposed project satisfies that need. In the present context, because of the pending PSRC planning process, it is especially important that the FAA and the Port coordinate closely with the PSRC so that the data underlying the PSRC study is identical to that underlying the EIS. Any material differences in assumptions, forecasts or projections between the PSRC and Port/FAA studies could make either or both studies vulnerable to legal and technical attack. Because of the importance of the statement of need, the Port and the FAA must take extraordinary care in quantifying the need and in ensuring that projections of need are accurate and consistent. This means that the FAA and the Port must explain all underlying projections, including any which have been adopted from earlier studies. The Port and the FAA must specifically ► document the reasons behind selection of one set of projections of airport activity over another set of projections; ► carefully discriminate between the use of region -wide projections and statistics and the use of projections and statistics that are particular to SEA; ► take care to use credible, relevant, up -to -date data in their projections; ► base the estimate of need on the Port's institution of demand and system management programs in compliance with the PSRC resolution; and ► also base the estimate of need on a potential PSRC recommendation for the development of a supplemental airport in the Puget Sound region. C. The Statement of Purpose for the Proposed Project The statement of purpose in the EIS performs a different function and follows from the statement of need. The statement of purpose should explain how the proposed project and the proposed federal action would satisfy the need. Moreover, the statement of purpose should provide the reader with the key for understanding why one alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative. The statement of purpose should provide the Page 28 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS foundation for the economic, political, legal, and -- most importantly -- environmental constraints and criteria which led to selection of the preferred alternative. The statement of purpose, furthermore, should articulate the rationale which led to the rejection of reasonable alternative means of meeting all or part of the need. If the need for the proposed action is to provide additional air transportation capacity to meet the long -term commercial aviation needs of the central Puget Sound region through at least 2020,12 the statement of purpose should explain if, and to what extent, the Port's proposal (i.e., the addition of a third runway at SEA) would satisfy the articulated need. Thus, it should, for example, explain how the construction of a third dependent runway-1°1/ in an airport that is severely limited in size (mg Figure 1)122/ will overcome permanent weather constraints10si and be able to satisfy long -term capacity needs of the region;11 0/ and how the addition of a third runway adequately can meet the needs of the projected 45 million passengers and 524,000 annual operations in 2020. i 191' See. e.a., EIS Public Information Packet at 1; Flight Plan EIS at 1 -2. 21/ The Port proposes to construct a third dependent runway along the western boundary of the existing SEA property, 2,500 feet west of the existing eastern most runway. Flight Plan EIS at 3 -7. 10 2' At 2,500 hundred acres, the land area of SEA is smaller than the acreage at each of the 100 largest airports in the United States. Most airports handling a volume of annual operations similar to SEA have land areas well above 3,000 acres. 103' aka supra note 80. 10 —" aim supra note 74. 106' Flight Plan EIS at Table 1 -1, 1 -5. See also Table 1, supra. The Port's own calculations indicate that the increased capacity provided in the year 2001 by the proposed third runway would be inadequate as early as 2010, thereby providing as few as nine years of added capacity. Flight Plan EIS at 2 -14, Table 2 -4. Page 29 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS Awes FIGURE 1 TOTAL AIRPORT ACREAGE Airports • Salt Lake city. 302,000 El San Francisco 435,000 El Denver Stapleton - 401,00 Ragland, OR - 265,000 - 1091 Operations (FY) • Houston Intl - 310,000 Detrolt - 301,000 • Memphis - 322,000 E?2 Seattle-Tecoms - 340,000 SOURCES: U.S. Dep't of Transp. Nat'l Flight Data Center, Public Use Landing Facilities by Acreage; U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Aviation Admin., DOT/FAA/ASC-93-1, 1993 Aviation System Capacity Plan, Table A-1. • „ Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS 1. The FAA's Purpose for the Proposed Project Unlike the statement of need, the statement of purpose is required to respond to the FAA's statutory mandate, the agency's regulations, and policy statements by the Administrator, Secretary of Transportation and other relevant federal officials.101 Unlike the Port, the FAA has been directed by Congress to implement certain policy goals and objectives with respect to funding for airport expansions under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act.' These goals and objectives are among the policy objectives and statutory responsibilities which must guide the FAA in identifying the purpose of this project pursuant to NEPA. The Airport and Airway Improvement Act mandates that the FAA give "special emphasis" to the development of reliever airports; requires that the FAA develop integrated systems of airports in metropolitan areas; instructs the FAA to develop airports in small communities; directs that the FAA encourage competition in the commercial aviation industry; and requires that the FAA encourage the entry of air carriers into new markets .121-3/ These statutory mandates particularly are important here because the FAA is not faced with a single proposed action. Generally, the FAA is requested to approve an airport expansion which has been propounded by an airport proprietor. Under its statutory mandate to encourage the national aviation system, the FAA's statement of purpose can be limited by its obligation to examine whether the proposed action is consistent with that objective.10ei In the present situation, however, the FAA is faced with potentially conflicting statutory obligations. At the same time that the Port is proceeding with its own planning, the PSRC is studying -- and may likely recommend -- development of a supplemental airport for the Puget Sound region. The FAA's statutory mandate requires that the agency examine both proposals to determine whether one, both, or neither meets the agency's obligations. Consequently, the FAA's statement of purpose for NEPA purposes must be considerably broader than generally is required for EISs on proposed airport la/ For a list of relevant statutory obligations, see Order No. 1050.1 D, 1 6. 1071 49 U.S.C. app. § 2201 et sea. lj 1 2201. See also 49 U.S.C. § 1302. IS2/ 5.g1 Citizens Against Burlington v. Busev, 938 F.2d at 196. Page 31 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS expansions. The statement of purpose must give equal consideration to the development of a supplemental airport which might be recommended by the PSRC and the expansion of capacity at SEA as proposed by the Port. A statement of purpose which does not specifically respond to the FAA's mandate is objectionable and subject to challenge. 2. The Port's Purpose for the Proposed Project The statement of purpose under SEPA must explain how the proposed project -- and each reasonable alternative -- will satisfy the Port's declaration of need and the requirements of the PSRC resolution. It also must consider the legal constraints placed upon the Port by the State of Washington Growth Management Act ( "GMA ")." —°' As discussed in detail below," —'V the GMA mandates a collaborative planning process among the Port, King County, the cities and towns in the County and the PSRC with respect to all transportation planning projects.'' —'2' This statutory mandate is particularly important in the context of the Port's discussion of the purpose of its proposed action. The Port is required not only to justify how its proposed action will meet the long -term regional transportation need that it has articulated, but also to explain how the proposed action will satisfy the requirements of the GMA. Therefore, the Port's statement of purpose must satisfy two legal obligations. ► It must justify how the Port's proposed actions will meet the Tong -term air transportation needs of the Puget Sound region: • explaining how the proposed action will overcome existing weather constraints on Airport operations; • explaining how the proposed action will resolve existing and projected air space management problems in the region;''' / and " -0/ Chapter 36.70A RCW. ,egg 4 V.A.2, infra. ""-2/ $gg RCW 36.70A.030(1)(b), .070, .100; id, 47.80.030(1)(a), (b). 1131 ,egg § V.A.4, infra. Page 32 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS explaining how the proposed project will facilitate the large projected increase in passengers and operations given the small size of the Airport property. T e Port's statement of purpose also must explain how the Port's proposed a tions will satisfy the legal requirements of the GMA. Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS III. CONNECTED, CUMULATIVE AND SIMILAR ACTIONS CEQ regulations require that the EIS consider the "total proposal" which is pending before the agency. —w The regulations state that the "total proposal includes the proposed action and all other actions reasonably related to it in time and probability " -N -- those actions which are connected, cumulative and similar actions to those being proposed by the sponsor.'' -w The FAA's and Port's scoping notice states that the EIS will be prepared for "a proposal by the Port to develop a new parallel runway and other airport facility improvements to be examined in an update to the Seattle- Tacoma International Airport . . . Master Plan. "- -v The notice further states that this proposed development "is expected to include numerous projects including, but not be [sic] limited to ": ► construction of a new parallel runway; ► improvements to the passenger terminal; ► ground access system; and ► other support facilities."" —e/ In addition to the Port's planning process, the PSRC has undertaken a planning and feasibility study for a supplemental airport in compliance with its April 1993 resolution setting forth conditions which govern the construction of a third runway at SEA. " s—/ The PSRC study unquestionably is a connected action for NEPA purposes which must be studied " - -`/ Order No. 5050.4A, 1 26C. a/ id - -°/ 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25 et sea. See also Order 5050.4A 1 74a. - -' 59 Fed. Reg. 645 (n@ Exhibit 2). 1:11/ PSRC Resolution A- 93 -03. See also § I.A.1., suora. Page 34 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS in the EIS. (For SEPA purposes, the Port may not be obligated to consider the PSRC plans as a connected action because of the joint Port-PSRC Flight Plan nonproject EIS.) The Port's Master Plan presumably would set forth a comprehensive plan for the expansion of SEA which would result in a significant alteration of the Airport property and the way it operates. Along with the on- Airport changes would come necessary off - Airport changes in infrastructure, including roads, water and sewage facilities, and other essential governmental services. The EIS must examine all of the development that will be recommended in the Master Plan Update including not only the major improvements set forth in the Notice of Intent, but also the other improvements recommended and any other actions associated with the major elements of the Master Plan. Such projects include the construction of additional taxiways, the acquisition of land necessary to accommodate both the proposed construction and FAA required clear zones, the movement of an estimated 13.7 million cubic yards of fill material to provide a stable base for the proposed runway and the expansion of the network of access roads. The interrelationship of the various individual components proposed in the Master Plan Update and in the PSRC's supplemental airport plan requires that they all be considered in the EIS. Any public works project of the magnitude of the Port's proposal also inevitably would lead to other related projects that must be addressed in the EIS regardless of whether the Port or the FAA funds or undertakes the project. For example, ► Local and state governments have to take actions, including provision of additional transportation, sewage, or water facilities as a direct result of the proposed project. The impacts of these actions must be addressed. ► Federal and state law may require that the EIS contain mandatory mitigation measures as required by substantive environmental laws. Such mitigation may include noise - related property purchases, and acquisition of wetlands, farmlands, or parklands to replace affected sites. The impacts of such acquisitions must be addressed in detail as integral, cumulative, and connected actions which are elements of the proposed federal action for purposes of NEPA. Page 35 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS • The EIS must examine the impacts of the Port's revised Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program and the Mediation Agreement, as explained below.' 0/ It also must examine the effects of the noise reduction activities undertaken by the Port in compliance with the PSRC's resolution.m/ • The FAA presently is reviewing the existing Four Post Plan governing air traffic near SEA. 1211 Alterations to the Four Post Plan must be examined in the EIS.' 1 • The Port has prepared plans for a number of improvements to land -side facilities at SEA including terminal improvements, construction of a south access road, and development of a large new aircraft maintenance facility in the southeastern portion of the Airport property.-124/ • The City of SeaTac has zoned a significant portion of its city adjacent to the Airport as an "Aviation Business Communityn12 i which will accommodate and serve the SEA expansion project. It is critical to recognize that the EIS will be inadequate to the extent that it focuses solely on activities which are proposed to occur on the Airport site and which are proposed to be undertaken directly by the FAA or by the Port. The FAA has an obligation under NEPA to investigate actions undertaken by other federal and non - federal actors which are reasonably proximate (in location, time, or causation) -- such as the PSRC's supplemental '-n/ $gg § III.B, infra. t21' PSRC Res. A- 93 -03. egg § I.A.1, supra. 122/ See. e.a., Joseph Turner, FAA to Pay for Sea -Tac Flight -Path Studv, The Morning News (Tacoma, WA) Oct. 22, 1993; Arthur C. Gorlick, ;Jet Noise Studv for Sea -Tac, Seattle Post Intelligencer, Oct. 13, 1993. 122' sSgg § I II. C, infra. deg Port of Seattle, South Aviation Support Area - Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Mar. 1992) ( "SASA Draft EIS "); Port of Seattle, Terminal Development Program - Seattle- Tacoma International Airport (Draft) (Apr. 1, 1992) ( "Terminal Development Program "); Port Commission of the Port of Seattle, Proposed Minutes of the Special Meeting (Feb. 20, 1993) at 4 -5; Port Commission of the Port of Seattle, Proposed Minutes of the Regular Meeting (Feb. 23, 1993) at 8-9. See also § III.A, infra. -'v au City of SeaTac Public Notice, File AMD0005 -92, Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of EIS (Feb. 10, 1993). Page 36 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS airport planning study -- which may be classified as cumulative, connected, or similar actions. If the scope of the EIS is limited to those actions listed in the FAA's Notice of Intent, the EIS will be impermissibly narrow in scope.1 A. Planned Improvements to Land -Side Facilities Long -term improvements under consideration by the Port for SEA include a range of terminal and other facility expansions, construction of a south access road, and development of a large new aircraft maintenance facility in the southeastern portion of the Airport property. The scope of, and need for, the terminal and facility expansions would depend on whether SEA is expanded beyond its current aviation capacity. Facility developments have been identified for three different annual operation projections -- 380,000, 410,000 and 480,000.10 At 480,000 annual operations, the Port has proposed the following land - side improvements: 12°/ ;zgg Thomas v. Peterson, 753 F.2d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 1985); Friends of the Earth v. Coleman, 518 F.2d 323, 326 (9th Cir. 1975); Scientists' Inst. for Pub. Info. v. United States Atomic Enerov Comm'n, 481 F.2d 1079, 1088 -89 (D.C. Cir. 1973) In City of Davis v. Coleman, 521 F.2d 661 (9th Cir. 1975), plaintiff brought suit to enjoin the construction of a freeway interchange being built by California with the help of federal money on the grounds that the Federal Highway Administration had failed to prepare an EIS. The facts suggested, and the court held, that the interchange was being built "to stimulate and service future industrial development" which the local governments were in the process of planning. j at 667. The defendants argued that the "environmental consequences of development will result from local and private action, not federal action, and that therefore they need not consider the consequences of development in determining whether an EIS is required." j. at 677. The court disagreed: They are wrong. It must be remembered that the main purpose of the interchange, and its only credible economic justification, is to provide access ... for future industrial development. The argument that the principal object of a federal project does not result from federal action contains its own refutation. Thus, we hold that NEPA requires consideration of the effects of the planned development. (citation omitted) (emphasis added). From these cases, it is clear that the FAA is obligated to examine in the EIS those actions which are functionally dependent upon the Sponsor's Airport development proposal or which would not occur but for the redevelopment of SEA. 127 Terminal Development Program at ES -8, -9. Page 37 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS • maximum expansion of ticketing and baggage claim facilities; • improvement of interline and outbound baggage system, including implementation of a unified automated system; • maximum expansion and refurbishment of Concourse A; • development of an office building and /or hotel at Concourse D; • maximum expansion of both satellite terminals; • expansion of parking; • relocation of international arrival facilities to Concourse A; and • related utilities, site preparation and facility relocation.10/ The Port recently has acquired property for the proposed development of support facilities, including aircraft maintenance facilities south of the Airport.129/ Although there is no timetable for the completion of this project, it is likely to be implemented before the year 2000, because the proposed expansion of Concourse A under the terminal development program would require the demolition and relocation of existing aircraft maintenance facilities used by several air carriers.130/ The development of the maintenance facilities would require the partial relocation of Des Moines Creek and the construction of a large new industrial wastewater treatment facility to control and treat stormwater runoff.121/ lar Id, at ES -10. SEA's land -side acreage is extremely limited, particularly when compared with airports handling comparable numbers of aircraft operations. Egg § 11.8, supra, Figure 1. 1201 $@@ SASA Draft EIS. ' -'0/ 11 at 2 -3. 131, Ij at 3 -8 to 3 -9. Page 38 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS The Port also proposes to construct a four -lane south access road to connect the passenger terminal with either Interstate 5 or a southern extension of State Route 509.132' The EIS must examine the impacts of each of these projects to the extent that proposed land -side developments complement, are connected to, or are cumulatively related to the proposed Airport expansion. B. Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program and the Mediation Agreement The Port has adopted a Noise Compatibility Program in accordance with Part 150 of the FAA regulations133' outlining measures designed either to mitigate the impacts of present noise or to prevent further conflict by ensuring compatible future development in noise sensitive areas.134' In 1985, the FAA approved the Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program ( "Part 150 Program ") for SEA.135' The 1985 Part 150 Program included the following noise abatement and mitigation proposals: ► the acquisition of residential properties located within areas of high noise exposure; ► the installation of sound insulation in certain residential properties and a contribution towards sound insulation in other residential properties; a/ An environmental impact statement under SEPA is being prepared to examine the effects of construction of the south access road (as well as an extension southward of State Route 509), which would be coordinated and funded jointly with the Washington Department of Transportation, the City of SeaTac, the City of Des Moines, and King County. Port Commission of the Port of Seattle, Proposed Minutes of the Regular Meeting (Feb. 23, 1993) at 8 -9. It appears, therefore, that construction of a south access road may be initiated within the next few years. 133/ 14 C.F.R. Part 150. 13" Port of Seattle, Sea -Tac International Airport, Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Planning (1985). Page 39 IAirport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS I , ► implementation of a model transaction assistance /purchase assurance program for residences affected by high noise exposure; I.._ • potential rescheduling of nighttime flights; ► elimination of flight training activities; • use of VOR radials to improve the ability of aircraft to use noise abatement flight tracks; and I • establishment of an Airport noise abatement office) - ' More recently, the Port has submitted an updated Noise Exposure Map 7 and amendments to its Part 150 ProgramPI/ The amendments revise the original noise compatibility programs dealing with sound insulation, transaction assistance and noise ` monitoring: • All non -sound insulated homes within the 65 dB Ldf contour would be L considered incompatible land uses eligible for a sound insulation design goal of at least 5 dB reduction and an interior noise level no more than 45 dB Ldn with f preference given to the most noise - affected homes.13s' 1. _ • The Port would assume the entire cost of insulating eligible single - family residences upon application by an owner :11 T 1 -_ n/ j at Ch. 6. ' —' The Port submitted updated noise exposure maps for SEA to the FAA on June 11, 1992. The maps were accepted by the FAA on April 16, 1993. Seattle- Tacoma International Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program: 1993 Amendments ("1993 Part 150 Program Amendments ") at A.3. See also 58 Fed. Reg. 25,695 (1993). 13e' 1993 Part 150 Program Amendments. On December 3, 1993, the FAA issued a Receipt of Noise Compatibility Program and Request for Review of the Port's amended Part 150 Program. The notice stated that agency approval or disapproval would be forthcoming by May 18, 1994. 58 Fed. Reg. 64,022 (1993). t' 1993 Part 150 Program Amendments at A.5 -A.6 —o' at A.6 -A.7. Page 40 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS ► The Port would conduct a pilot project extending sound insulation to public use facilities and multi - family homes z'-' ► The Port would revise its transaction assistance program with a new special purchase option allowing any individual owning a home for more than five years immediately adjacent to property acquired by the Port to apply to have the Port purchase the property at fair market value. After purchase, the Port would insulate the home and offer it for resale 1a/ Homes not directly adjacent to Port- acquired property within the transaction assistance eligibility areas may qualify for other forms of transaction assistance, if the home has been insulated through the Port's insulation program. ► The Port would evaluate the Airport's Noise Monitoring System1u/ to determine whether it should be expanded, modified, or completely replaced.la4/ The 1993 Part 150 Program Amendments are intended principally to incorporate components of the 1990 Mediation Agreement among the Port, Airport users, the FAA, local governments and community groups.145/ The Mediation Agreement has several components, which collectively are designed to result, by the year 2001, in an overall noise reduction of approximately 50 percent to communities near SEA when compared to 1989 noise exposure levels.14 J Included among the components of the Mediation Agreement are: " —'' Id, at A.10 -A.14. The pilot project would include two churches, one private school, one convalescent home and one multi - family residence with more than four units. j at A.9. • i at A.19 -A.20. The special purchase option would be available only one time for each eligible property. Therefore, a new owner purchasing a home from the Port would not qualify for another special purchase option. id, at A.19. 143/ 11 at A.23. j at A.23 -A.24. The evaluation would not be initiated until the flight track monitoring system is in operation, fully tested and accepted. j 14e4 1993 Part 150 Program Amendments. See also Mediation Committee, Final Package of Mediated Noise Abatement Actions for Seattle- Tacoma International Airport (1990) (the "Mediation Agreement "). Mediation Agreement at 2. Page 41 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS • a noise budget for all commercial aircraft operations, measured using average noise energy Ievels;to • a nighttime phaseout of stage 2 aircraft operations;'''' `e/ • an enhanced noise insulation program;' -48' • preferential flight tracks, supported by improved technology and FAA procedures; -0i 2' jj, App. A. The noise budget, which became effective January 1, 1991, requires a reduction in SEA's maximum airport noise exposure level from 74.53 dB in the 1989 base period to 71.24 dB in 2001. This reduction is to be achieved through a progressive reduction in the permissible noise each of the commercial carriers serving SEA may generate. Any airline exceeding its annual noise allocation is subject to up to a $ 1 million fine. The noise budget also contains an incentive for air carriers to use increasing percentages of stage 3 aircraft at SEA. If a carrier's operations at SEA exceed the stage 3 targets identified in the noise budget, that carrier is allowed to exceed its noise allocation under the budget. The stage 3 targets range from 70 percent stage 3 operations at SEA in 1991 to 95 percent stage 3 in 1997. Iii.; see also 1991 NEM Update App. A. " — °' The nighttime phaseout, which became effective October 1, 1990, is designed to occur over the course of several years: effective October 1, 1992, stage 2 operations are prohibited between midnight and 6 a.m.; effective October 1; 1993, stage 2 operations are prohibited between 11 p.m. and 6:30 a.m.; effective October 1, 1994, stage 2 operations will be prohibited between 10:30 p.m. and 6:45 a.m.; and effective October 1, 1995 (and thereafter), stage 2 operations will be prohibited between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Mediation Agreement App. B at 3. 11/ The noise insulation program called for in the Mediation Agreement includes doubling the rate at which the Port will insulate residences. j at 5. In accordance with the Mediation Agreement, the Port has requested FAA approval of federal funds for soundproofing public buildings other than public schools and hospitals (e.g., libraries, private schools, churches, auditoriums, etc.) j ,sot The flight tracks preferred under the Mediation Agreement are designed to moderate noise impacts of aircraft overflights on residential communities. td, at 7, 9. These flight tracks call for the FAA to route aircraft over Elliott Bay and Puget Sound to the extent feasible. la, To facilitate improved use of noise abatement flight tracks, the Port also committed to seeking FAA support for the installation of a microwave landing system at the Airport. It. at 8. Page 42 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS • ground noise controls, including penalties for violations of ground runup restrictions and a prohibition on the use of powerback procedures for gate departures;161' • a state -of- the -art flight track and noise monitoring system;'i and • creation of a Noise Abatement Committee.' The Port's 1993 Part 150 Program Amendments and the Mediation Agreement specify a number of measures that are designed to abate or mitigate Airport noise. Consequently, the Mediation Agreement and the 1993 Part 150 Program Amendments unquestionably are cumulative actions under NEPA, and, to the extent that they complement the proposed Airport expansion, the EIS must examine the impacts of the 1993 Part 150 Program Amendments and the Mediation Agreement. C. The Four Post Plan The so- called "Four Post Plan" governs air traffic routes and procedures for aircraft using Seattle -area airspace.mv First proposed by the FAA in 1989, the Four Post Plan revised air traffic control procedures for SEA and high altitude aircraft routes used in the Pacific Northwest. The FAA's primary rationale for adopting the Four Post Plan appears to have been to increase airport capacity at SEA and to provide its air traffic controllers with two separate arrival corridors northwest and northeast of the Airport. In its environmental assessment of the Plan, the FAA asserted that the then - existing air traffic 161/ The Mediation Agreement also requires that a hush house or similar facility be constructed at SEA if a new aircraft maintenance facility is built at the airport. Ifj, at 10. .Seg 4 III.A, supra. 162/ ate Mediation Agreement at 11 -13. 163' Id, at 15. / %la Temple H. Johnson, Jr., Manager, Air Traffic Div., Northwest Mountain Region, Fed. Aviation Admin., Decision and Order (Apr. 2, 1990). / U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Aviation Admin., Final Environmental Assessment, Proposed Changes to Air Traffic Arrival and Departure Routes at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport (1990) . ( "Four Post Plan"). Page 43 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS control procedures for SEA158' limited airport capacity when the Airport was in a south flow configuration; operations were limited to 42 aircraft arrivals per hour in favorable weather conditions, versus a theoretical maximum of 56 arrivals per hour.157/ Controversial from its inception,' e/ the Four Post Plan continues to arouse opposition. The PSRC resolution calls upon the FAA to consider modifying the Four -Post Plan to reduce noise impacts, and the related impacts on regional military air traffic) - In response to requests by Congressman Mike Kreidler, the FAA has undertaken a review of the Four -Post Plan.' —d0' The Four -Post Plan is a significant factor in determining SEA's operational capacity and, therefore, the Plan and any proposed or adopted modifications to the Plan must be examined as part of the EIS for the proposed expansion of SEA. D. The Washington State Air Transportation Commission (AIRTRAC) The Washington Legislature created the Air Transportation Commission ( "AIRTRAC ") in 1990 for the purpose of developing a state -wide air transportation strategy through consultation with private business as well as with local and regional governments. In April Air traffic control procedures for SEA at the time specified that when the Airport was in a south flow configuration, all aircraft enroute to SEA were to be routed over Puget Sound and Elliott Bay (northwest of SEA and downtown Seattle) and were to follow a single approach path to the Airport. This procedure was intended to preclude arrivals from overflying residential areas north and east of downtown Seattle. L44 at 9. Aircraft arrivals when the Airport was in a north flow configuration were not similarly constrained. lam. l/ Id 168/ Following approval of the Four Post Plan, a lawsuit challenging its adoption by the FAA was filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. egg Seattle Community Council Fed'n v. FAA, 961 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1992). The suit sought to require the FAA to prepare a full EIS prior to implementing the Plan, and to rely on noise measurements other than the Ldfl contour of 65 dB to evaluate the impacts of the Plan. k,_ at 833. The federal appellate court held that the completion of an environmental assessment satisfied the FAA's obligations under NEPA. Imo. PSRC Res. A- 93 -03. ,eo/ Joseph Turner; Arthur C. Gorlick, supra note 122. Page 44 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS 1992, the Legislature passed S.H.B. No. 26091W which delegated additional responsibilities to AIRTRAC and prohibited the initiation of new runway construction at SEA prior to December 1, 1994.1w S.H.B. 2609 instructed AIRTRAC to • assess the statewide implications of local and regional air transportation planning; • recommend specific goals for air transportation; • define the relationship between air transportation and environmental and economic policy goals; • formulate statewide policy recommendations; and • coordinate air transportation with statewide transportation system planning z' A principal purpose for AIRTRAC's involvement in the development of statewide air transportation policy has been to ensure that decisions made by the Port and the PSRC are justified and will not result in a flawed solution to the region's and the state's air transportation needs. AIRTRAC was directed to prepare two reports to the Legislature's Transportation Committee including an independent analysis of the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee's1°1 forecasts for air transportation demand and capacity in the Puget Sound area, and an evaluation of the ability of high speed rail, intermodal and air transportation options to satisfy Washington's long -term transportation needs.185' Wash. Legis. Serv. ch. 190, S.H.B. No. 2609 (1992). 12 (codified at RCW 53.08.350). 1. Egg, $gg, supra note 74. S.H.B. No. 2609 I4 2, 3. Page 45 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS AIRTRAC issued its final report concerning statewide air transportation policies to the Legislature in November 1993.1w The recommendations are intended to form the basis for any future legislative actions concerning the Port's authority to undertake its Airport development plan. The Legislature's reaction to the AIRTRAC report, therefore, could fundamentally affect the Port's ability to proceed with the implementation of its plans.187 For example, as a result of the AIRTRAC report, legislation presently is pending in the Legislature that would limit the authority of the Port to site and develop airport facilities on its own and retain for the state a substantially larger role in planning, building and operating airports.1 / Consequently, consideration of potential state legislative actions in response to AIRTRAC's recommendations must be included in the EIS as cumulative and connected actions. E. City of SeaTac Zoning The City of SeaTac has zoned a significant portion of its city adjacent to the Airport as an "Aviation Business Community. "189' The high densities envisioned in this zoning category would have significant cumulative impacts upon traffic congestion, air pollution, population and employment densities and public services and must be considered in the EIS. T°1 ' Washington State Air Transp. Comm'n., Final Report and Policy Recommendations to the Legislative Transportation Committee (Nov. 1993). le State and regional agencies potentially have jurisdiction over construction of a third runway at SEA. These include the Washington Department of Ecology, Department of Transportation, Department of Community Development, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, and the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. Pursuant to their statutory authorities, these agencies are required to protect, among other things, local, regional and state air and water quality, fish and wildlife habitats, historic and archaeological sites, and wetlands. Consequently, they could impose restrictions on the Port's ability to affect those resources. 168/ afit Joseph Turner, supra note 63. au City of SeaTac Public Notice, File AMD0005 -92, Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of EIS. Page 46 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS So, too, must the designation of SeaTac as a "Subregional Center" in the PSRC's VISION 2020 regional planning strategy.' Subregional Centers are to be developed to accommodate jobs, shopping and cultural opportunities close to where people live..W As a Subregional Center, it can expect a significant population increase in the coming decades. An expanding population in a community literally surrounding the Airport means that additional residential areas would be exposed to higher noise levels. Moreover, the entire area is likely to experience additional traffic congestion and air and water pollution. The EIS must examine the City of SeaTac's decisions and likely development actions as connected and cumulative actions. mg' Puget Sound Council of Governments, VISION 2020 Growth and Transportation Strategy:for the Central Puget Sound Region (Oct. 1990) ( "VISION 2020 ") at 25. The Puget Sound regional Council is the successor organization to the Puget Sound Council of Governments: See supra note 26: / VISION 2020 at 24. Page. 47 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS IV. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES MANDATED BY NEPA AND SEPA A. Scope of Alternatives Which Must Be Addressed Under NEPA NEPA directs federal agencies to examine all environmental impacts of proposed projects, to develop and explore 8fl reasonable alternatives to such actions, and to analyze the potential environmental impacts of those alternatives :122/ Federal courts have emphasized that NEPA's purposes "are frustrated when consideration of alternatives and collateral effects is unreasonably constricted. "' NEPA further directs federal agencies to "study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. "'' -74/ [W]here ... the objective of a major federal project can be achieved in one of two or more ways that will have differing impacts on the environment, the responsible [agency] is required to study, develop and describe each alternative for appropriate consideration?ui As the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has stated, NEPA was intended to emphasize an important part of NEPA's theme that all change was not progress and to insist that no major federal project should be undertaken without intense consideration of other more ecologically sound courses of action, including shelving the entire project, or of accomplishing the same result by entirely different means.... [T]he District of Columbia Circuit [has] recognized that this section did not intend to limit an agency to consideration of only those alternatives that it could adopt or put into effect. We agree. The imperative directive is a thorough consideration of all appropriate methods of accomplishing the aim of the action, including those '—'z' 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(iii). " - -'' Greene County Plannino Bd. v. Federal Power Comm'n., 559 F.2d 1227, 1232 (2d. Cir. 1976), pert. denied, 434 U.S. 1 086 11978). ' —"i 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(E). av Trinity Episcopal Sch. v. Romney, 523 F.2d 88, 93 (2d Cir. 1975). Page 48 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS without the area of the agency's expertise and regulatory control as well as those within it.' -7°i Thus, the analysis of alternatives "is the heart of the environmental impact statement. ""v In order to satisfy these demanding requirements the law reauires that the Port /FAA EIS examine fully a number of reasonable and practical alternatives to the Port's plan for the proposed expansion of SEA. These alternatives must reflect the regional need for additional long -term air transportation capacity at least through 2020, and should include detailed consideration of the following: ► the construction of a new, replacement, air carrier airport; ► the accelerated development of supplemental or reliever airport facilities for either commercial or non -air carrier use; ► the institution of system and demand management programs at SEA; ► the imposition of operational restrictions at SEA -- including the diversion of commuter and /or general aviation traffic to other airports -- to limit growth of demand; ► different runway locations; ► different runway lengths and uses; ► alternative transportation modes, such as high speed rail; and ► the no action alternative. It is critical that the EIS explore alternatives to the proposed redevelopment at SEA not only to satisfy the legal requirements of NEPA and other substantive environmental laws, but also to educate the public and the applicable government agencies about the range of 17°' Environmental DefensQ Fund. Inc. v. United States Armv Cons of Ena'rs, 492 F.2d 1123, 1135 (5th Cir. 1974). 72) 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14. Pape 49 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOP /NG COMMENTS actions which are available to satisfy the stated purpose and need and the costs and benefits associated with these options. The importance of the alternatives analysis is heightened by the requirements of substantive federal and state environmental laws which prohibit federal actions which cause specific types of environmental damage if alternatives exist to the federal action.lm In examining possible alternatives, an agency may not eliminate alternatives simply because they do not achieve Di of the articulated needs for the proposed project or because the agency does not have the authority to implement them.' ' -78' Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act provides that the Secretary of Transportation can not approve any transportation project, including an airport project, which requires the "use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance, or land of a historic site of national, State or local significance tin the absence of findings that) (1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and (2) the program or project, includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use." 49 U.S.C. § 303(c). The Airport and Airway Improvement Act states that the Secretary: (Wiith regard to any project included in a project grant application involving ... runway location which may have a significant impact on natural resources including, but not limited to, fish and wildlife, natural, scenic, and recreation assets, water and air quality, and other factors affecting the environment, ... shall authorize no such project found to have significant adverse effect unless the Secretary shall render a finding, in writing, following a full and complete review, which shall be a matter of public record, that no feasible and prudent alternative exists and that all reasonable stein have been taken_ to minimize such adverse effect. 49 U.S.C. app. § 2208(b)(5) (emphasis added). These statutes, as well as the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344, require vigorous examination and scrutiny of alternatives to the proposed project which is substantially more probing than the examination required by NEPA alone. FAA regulations require that the EIS comply not only with the strictures of NEPA but also with the requirements of numerous other federal environmental laws. ' -7 1' ,5111 Town of Matthews v. United States Deo't of Transo., 527 F. Supp. 1055, 1057 (W.D.N.C. 1981); Save the Niobrara River Ass'n v. Andrus, 483 F. Supp. 844, 861 (D. Neb. 1977); Rankin v., Coleman, 394 F. Supp. 647, 659 (E.D.N.C. 1975). Page 50 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS Under NEPA, an alternative is reasonable if it is "practical and feasible from a technical and economical standpoint. w180' An alternative, therefore, is reasonable if it meets at least some of the needs that the proposed action is intended to serve.= The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stated this principle succinctly by explaining that "the evaluation of 'alternatives' mandated by NEPA is to be an evaluation of alternative means to accomplish the general goal of an action; it is not an evaluation of the alternative means by which a particular applicant [or sponsor] can reach his goals. "1' Consequently, for NEPA purposes, the Port's goals are not relevant to the alternatives analysis in the EIS. The FAA can not limit the scope of alternatives to those which the Port desires to -- or has the authority to -- implement. B. Scope of Alternatives Which Must Be Addressed Under SEPA Similar to NEPA, SEPA requires that an EIS describe and analyze appropriate and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action.183' The alternatives analyzed need not be exhaustive but should be representative of the range of choices184' to permit intelligent comparative evaluation.185' Such alternatives "shall include actions that could feasibly attain or approximate a proposal's objectives, but at a lower environmental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation. n18 v Alternatives are considered reasonable if they would attain or approximate the proposal's objectives with less environmental harm even CEQ Questions and Answers on National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, Env't Rep. (BNA) 41:2701. 7°'l Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., 492 F.2d 1123; Joseph v. Adams, 467 F. Supp. 141 (E.D. Mich. 1978). tali Van Abbema v. Fornell, 807 F.2d 633, 638 (7th Cir. 1986). ' —°3j 5.11@ RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(e); WAC 197 -11- 440(5). 1.11 5.ggToandos Peninsula Ass'n v. Jefferson County, 648 P.2d 448 (1982). See also WAC 197 - 440(5)(b)(i). WAC 197- 11- 440(5)(c)(v). ,ea 197- 11- 440(5)(b). Page 51 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS though they would do so outside the authority of an agency with jurisdiction over the proposed project.187' The discussion of alternatives under SEPA requires that the Port present a comparison of the environmental impacts of reasonable alternatives -- including no action and delayed action alternatives -- and "[dievote sufficient analysis to each reasonable alternative to permit a comparative evaluation.... Particular attention should be given to the possibility of foreclosing future options by implementing the proposal. "114/ Although NEPA requires the examination of a wider range of alternatives than SEPA,1 1 the discussion of alternatives under SEPA involves substantive as well as procedural dimensions. A [state or local] agency which, in response to [SEPA requirements], fails to consider, clearly feasible, more environmentally - benign sites for, say, an airport, shopping center, or major industrial installation just because the proposed site is suitably zoned will have a difficult time convincing a court that the omitted alternatives were not reasonable. SEPA's mission, after all, is to minimize environmental degradation. To allow a[n agency] which needs an airport, shopping center, or new industry to ignore sites other than the one . . . proposed is to invite unnecessary environmental harm.1O' Under SEPA, reasonable alternatives also are considered to be "mitigating measures." Mitigating measures may avoid an impact by not acting;191' may minimize an impact by 1671 Rodgers, The Washington Environmental Policy Act, 60 Wash. L. Rev. 33, 56 -57 (1984). WAC 197- 11- 440(5)(c)(v)- (vii). ' —°°' See, e.a., Methow Valley Citizens Council v. Reaional Forester, 883 F.2d 810 (9th Cir. 1987) (EIS held inadequate for failure to analyze the expansion of existing ski areas as alternative to building new one); Friends of the Earth v. Hall, 693 F. Supp. 904 (W.D. Wash. 1988) (EIS held inadequate for failure to analyze alternative means of dredge spoil disposal). Richard L. Settle, supra note 17, § 14(b)(ii), at 182 -83 (citation omitted). WAC 197 -11- 768(1). Page 52 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS reducing the scale or modifying the design of the action?22' rectify an impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment;'93' progressively reduce or eliminate an impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations;1941 compensate for an impact by replacement or enhancement actions;185' and monitor an impact in order to take appropriate corrective action.' "Since in the SEPA Rules, 'mitigation' is avoidance and amelioration of environmental harm and a 'reasonable alternative' is an action which would attain or approximate a proposal's objective with Tess environmental harm, reasonable alternatives are mitigating measures. For the most part the two terms are functionally interchangeable. "187 The preparation of a nonproject (or programmatic) EIS, along with its discussion of alternatives at an abstract level, is not a substitute for adequate and detailed alternatives analysis in a site - specific EIS. In accordance with the purpose of a nonproject EIS, the discussion of alternatives in the Flight Plan EIS only examined alternatives at a very general leve1.188' Moreover, the Flight Plan EIS did not even attempt a site - specific analysis or serious comparison of the environmental effects of each alternative presented. Throughout the discussion of affected environment, significant impacts and mitigation measures, the document warns that an evaluation of surface transportation, local land use impacts near airports, regional airport siting questions, and specific impacts on the natural environment is deferred and "will be examined in detail in subsequent project -level environmental impact statements (EISs)."189' 1°a/ 4, 197 -11- 768(2). !2/ Id, 197 -11- 768(3). IgL 197 -11- 768(4). t°6' LC 197 -11- 768(5). at' 10, 197 -11- 768(6). Richard L. Settle, supra note 17 at 184 -1 to 185. 2e' Flight Plan EIS at 3 -1 to 3 -30. "System alternatives are generic in nature .... Site - specific studies to be conducted later will address the more- specific questions of 'where should we implement the chosen system alternative and how will we make it work ?'" 11 at 3 -1. ' —°°' j at 4 -95. See also LC at 4 -48, 4 -56, 4 -79. Pape 53 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS SEPA rules also provide that preparation of a nonproject EIS allows a project sponsor considerably greater latitude with respect to the subsequent evaluation of alternatives in a project- specific EIS:' "When a project is then proposed that is consistent with the approved nonproject action, the EIS on such a project shall focus on the impacts and alternatives . . . specific to the subsequent project and not analyzed in the nonproject EIS." ° Thus, because SEPA permits a sponsor preparing a nonproject EIS to focus only on site - specific alternatives in the subsequent project EIS, the Port is permitted under SEPA to prepare an EIS which examines primarily on- Airport alternatives. Compliance with NEPA requires a much broader consideration of reasonable alternatives. C. The EIS Must Satisfy Both SEPA and NEPA The FAA's Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS' is based upon the Port's SEPA obligations and not the FAA's NEPA obligations; it suggests an impermissibly narrow range of alternatives which the FAA and the Port propose to examine. The range of new parallel runway options that may be considered in the EIS are anticipated to be in the immediate vicinity of the existing airfield ;t Sea -Tac Airport.... [Dither airport developments that may be considered in the EIS would be located on or in the immediate vicinity of the existing Sea -Tac Airport property. . . . Major actions or concepts to be discussed in the draft EIS include the no action alternative and other reasonable alternatives meeting the purpose and need. Such alternatives are expected to include several options related to runway lengths, separations and threshold stagger.m' Because of the FAA's independent duty to ensure that its EIS examines all reasonable alternatives to the Port's proposed projects, a proper EIS for this project must analyze a much wider range of on- and off - Airport alternatives. The FAA can not rely on the Flight Plan EIS to narrow the scope of alternatives without first conducting its own independent Ds' WAC 197 -11- 443(2). isL nv 59 Fed. Reg. 645 (1994) (fin Exhibit 2). 202' Id, (emphasis added). Page 54 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS analysis of the range of regional alternatives, and verifying any conclusions contained in the Flight Plan EIS' In addition to NEPA's statutory requirements for the analysis of all reasonable alternatives,' the PSRC resolution' would require the FAA, at a minimum, to examine supplemental airport and demand /system management alternatives. In fact, the terms of the PSRC resolution mandate that the alternatives analysis in the EIS be based upon the assumption that the Port successfully has instituted demand and system management programs at SEA and that the PSRC has determined that a supplemental airport can not eliminate the need for a third runway at SEA.' D. Categories of Alternatives to Be Examined The alternatives which the EIS must examine fall into several broad categories. For each category, the EIS must ► analyze any reasonable alternatives; ► quantitatively and qualitatively compare the alternatives to the FAA's and Port's proposed actions; ► explain the FAA's basis for rejection of each alternative; and ► disclose the assumptions and projections which underlie each decision. Each category of alternatives is discussed below. 04� 40 C.F.R. § 1506.5(a). MI 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)1C1(iii). 20/ PSRC Resolution A -93 -03 Ina Exhibit 41. Page 55: Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS 1. Development of A New Air Carrier Airport The EIS must examine the alternative of constructing a replacement airport capable of serving regional commercial air transportation needs. Air transportation plays a major role in the economic growth and development of the Puget Sound region. Demand for air transportation has increased in the recent past, and continued increases in demand are forecast for the future 20/ In addition, Seattle and Washington state are well- positioned geographically to take advantage of the considerable trade and tourism opportunities offered by Pacific Rim countries. However, the region's long -term economic prospects are impaired by the limited capacity of SEA, even assuming a new runway is constructed. The small land area of the Airport (see Figure 1, supra) means that, even with the addition of a third runway, SEA would be inadequate to contain the airport facilities (e.g., long -term demand for passenger terminal space, as well as for on -site parking and cargo facilities) necessary to accommodate forecasted passenger and cargo volumes. Failure to identify an alternative airport site, or to implement a multiple airport system that includes a large, primarily international airport, could prevent Washington state from realizing the vast trade opportunities that are available. Providing for all the forecasted demand by increasing the capacity of SEA, as the Port has proposed, is not the only option -- nor necessarily the best one -- for meeting regional demand for air transportation capacity. One reasonable alternative would be construction of a replacement airport to serve the increasing demand in a more efficient manner. Many cities with air carrier hubs presently are considering the construction of a new (or additional) airport to serve regional needs because of physical constraints which limit growth at an existing facility.202 The FAA must take notice of such efforts nationwide -' The Flight Plan EIS based its analysis of alternatives on a projected demand level of 45 million annual enplaned passengers and 524,000 operations by 2020. Flight Plan EIS at 1 -5, Table 1 -1. The FAA must explain the ability of SEA to accommodate the projected growth and the feasibility of a new airport to replace SEA as the principal air carrier facility in the region. 20°l Denver will close Stapleton International Airport and initiate service at a new replacement airport in two weeks. Other cities, such as Minneapolis, Dallas, Boston and Chicago are engaged in studies to determine whether construction of an additional or replacement airport is practical. Page 56 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS and assess the practicality of constructing a new airport to serve regional demand in the Puget Sound area. There is no question that a new airport is feasible and prudent as studies for Denver and Chicago have demonstrated. In preparing the EIS, the FAA can not rely upon the Port's studies on the feasibility of constructing a new air carrier airport. In fact, in this instance, the PSRC also will be evaluating the feasibility of constructing a new or supplemental airport. Because of their interdependence, the PSRC study and the joint Port /FAA EIS should be closely coordinated to assure each study relies on similar assumptions. For example, consultants for the Port/FAA EIS and for the PSRC study should be encouraged to share information and use similar demand forecasts. If the PSRC concludes that a new airport would relieve the need for a third runway at SEA, then the Port /FAA EIS should reflect that conclusion. Not only must there be a serious and independent discussion of the new airport alternative, but the analysis also must include an examination of sites outside of King County. The Port's legal authority to construct an airport in other counties is irrelevant to the evaluation of this alternative pursuant to NEPA' While the Port's desire to confine the SEPA analysis of alternatives to activities and locations over which it has jurisdiction may be understandable and legally defensible from its perspective, the FAA's mandate under NEPA requires a broader, more searching inquiry and an examination of alternatives that do not necessarily meet the Port's proprietary objectives.m' NEPA requires that the EIS consider ,ice alternatives which are reasonable in the context of the national airspace system and the FAA's statutory mandates. 2. Construction or Use of Reliever Airports In addition to evaluating construction of an entirely new replacement airport, the EIS must examine the alternative of developing one or more airports in the region to serve as supplemental or reliever airports to SEA. In fact, the PSRC resolution requires that there be an independent study of a supplemental airport site before the Port may begin construction 10 CEQ Questions and Answers on National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, Env't Rep. 41:2701. „' kit Page 57 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS of its proposed third runway at SEA.rn' If the PSRC planning study demonstrates that a supplemental airport is feasible and can eliminate the need for the third runway, then the Port may not proceed with its proposed expansion project.' Further, the PSRC resolution requires that the Port institute a demand management program at SEA before any expansion of SEA might be approved' The diversion of a portion of its operations to supplemental or reliever airports would be an important part of such a demand management program. Therefore, the consideration of a supplemental or reliever airport is a reasonable alternative which must be considered in the EIS. The FAA has stated that [ reeiiever airports play an important role in easing capacity problems at primary airports by spreading aircraft operations over additional airports near these primary airports. In addition, since reliever airports are used mainly by smaller general aviation aircraft, they tend to segregate airport activity by aircraft size. ... The segregation of aircraft operations by size increases effective capacity because required time and distance separations are Tess between planes of similar size.21 5' The diversion of commuter operations to one or more supplemental airports makes particular sense with respect to SEA. Since 1986, the number of operations by commuter aircraft at SEA has increased dramatically, as shown in Figure 2.21N Commuter operations also have increased significantly as a percentage of total aircraft operations at the Airport, and have stabilized in recent years at the relatively high ratio of about 40 percent of total operations. (See Figure 3.) The Port's own studies recognize that much of the current PSRC Res. A- 93 -03. E' s,a 211/ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Aviation Admin., Airport Capacity Enhancement Plan (1988) at 2.7. 212/ an Flight Plan EIS at 2 -13. Page 58 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS demand for additional capacity at SEA results from the high volume of commuter operations.' While commuter operations now represent approximately 40 percent of all aircraft operations at SEA, commuter aircraft provide service to only a small percentage of all passengers using the Airport. (See Figure 4.) Therefore, commuter operations are an inefficient use of limited Airport capacity. Since most of the passengers using commuter aircraft -- approximately 56 percent -- are origination and destination passengers (;:gg Figure 5),210-' half of all commuter operations at SEA could be eliminated by diverting origination and destination commuters to a supplemental airport. The diversion of commuter operations would create additional capacity at SEA and would relieve capacity constraints during peak hours. Moreover, by diverting origination and destination commuter passengers to other airports, SEA could serve passenger jet aircraft and connecting commuter operations more efficiently. ' See. e.a., it, at 2 -9, 2 -14. Although the Port estimates that the proportion of commuter operations will level off and decline slightly by 2020, the Update of Passenger and Operations Forecasts for Seattle- Tacoma International Airport, prepared by P & D Aviation in 1992, anticipates a steady increase in commuter operations. at 2 -14. 221 egg Phase 1 Forecasts at 46, Table 21. 11. Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS FIGURE 2 OPERATIONS OF COMMUTER AIRCRAFT AT SEATTLE - TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 1986 -1993 1 1 vvvvy 50000 00000 50000 /.7.-------.-----.' 0. 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 191 1986 54,977 1987 95,337 1988 124,245 1989 139,215 1990 150,376 1991 142,828 1992 140,744 1993 131,046 SOURCES: Seattle- Tacoma International Airport Traffic and Operations Reports; Flight Plan E /S; Seattle- Tacoma International Airport Noise Abatement Office. Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS FIGURE 3 COMMUTER AIRCRAFT AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL OPERATIONS AT SEATTLE - TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 1986 -1993 60.0 46.0 40.0 36.0 30.0 26.0 20.0 18.0 SOURCES: Seattle- Tacoma International Airport Traffic . and Operations Reports; Flight. Plan; EIS; .. Seattle- Tacoma International Airport Noise Abatement Office. Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS FIGURE 4 PERCENTAGE OF PASSENGERS USING SEATTLE- TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BY AIRCRAFT TYPE 91 % Use Commercial Air Carrier SOURCE: Peat Marwick Main & Co., :Final Report, Phase 1 Forecasts - Flight Plan Study, Pupet. Sound , Region ( 1990) at 12 -13, Table 4. Airport Communities Coalition E/S SCOP/NG COMMENTS FIGURE 5 COMMUTER PASSENGERS ONLY - CONNECTING VERSUS ORIGINATION AND DESTINATION 44% Connecting Passengers 56% Origination and. Destination Passengers SOURCE.. Peat Marwick Main & Co., Final Report, Phase I Forecasts - Flight Plan Study, Puget Sound Region (1990) at 46, Table 21. Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS A number of existing airport facilities both north and south of SEA presently are equipped to handle commuter aircraft .212/ In addition, TAMS Consultants is conducting a study for the PSRC which will, among other things, seek to identify a suitable site or sites within the region for the location of a supplemental airport.222/ Multiple supplemental airports north or south of SEA would be reasonable alternatives to SEA for commuters who do not need to connect to other flights. Such passengers would be able to use a supplemental airport closer to their destination particularly if the airport were connected to downtown Seattle by convenient mass transit. A new commuter airport would be relatively simple to develop because ► supplemental airports already exist with adequate runways for commuter aircraft; ► existing terminal facilities could be used or improved at little cost; ► extensive baggage handling facilities would not be necessary; ► little planning would be needed prior to start -up; ► few capital improvements would be required; and ► the turboprop aircraft most frequently used for commuter operations tend to generate relatively little noise thereby minimizing noise problems in the surrounding community. Therefore, the EIS must analyze the supplemental airport alternative. 21°' Some potential supplemental airport sites include Paine Field, Arlington Airport, and possible joint civilian - military use of McChord Air Force Base. %Le Flight Plan EIS at 3 -7 to 3 -13. 2201 New York Enoineerina Firm to Lead Suoolemental Airport Study, supra note 31. Airport C mmunities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS 3. Adoption of Demand Management and System Management Programs and Imposition of Use Restrictions at SEA T e PSRC resolution requires the Port to institute demand and system management progra s at SEA.22 I The Port must implement these programs before it receives final approve from the PSRC to proceed with the proposed expansion of SEA. Pursuant to the PSRC r= solution, the efficacy of the demand and system management programs is subject to "ind pendent evaluation. "2 Therefore, the EIS must analyze not only the adoption of dem nd and system management programs as an alternative, but it must base the determi ation of need on the assumption that such programs already have been successfully impiem : nted. The EIS also must base the analyses of connected and cumulative actions and of envir• nmental impacts on the assumption that such programs have been implemented. investig Airport Such re at SEA flows in prefere aircraft without which it made, predom indeper those vti emand and system management options can take several forms. The EIS must to the alternative of imposing use restrictions at SEA which would permit the o serve a greater number of passengers without expansion of its airside capacity. trictions could include limitations on the type and size of aircraft that can operate t all times or during peak hours, and measures designed to spread out the peak order to use existing facilities more efficiently. Such measures could include giving ces for larger aircraft or limiting the number of commuter and general aviation perations at SEA. These alternatives would increase the existing capacity of SEA requiring an extensive expansion and reconfiguration of the current facilities. (though it has shown little interest in instituting demand and system management considers "a short -term strategy to help buy time while capacity improvements are 231 the Port's proprietary interest in expanding its Airport can not be allowed to mate over a full and fair consideration of this alternative. The FAA has an dent obligation to ensure that all reasonable alternatives are considered, not simply hich the Port prefers. The EIS, therefore, can not summarily reject the possibility of a' PSRC Res. A- 93 -03. 223' Flight Plan EIS at 3 -5. Page 65 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS limiting growth by levying fees on certain operations, limiting use of the facility by certain aircraft at certain times, or other restrictions which would have the effect of changing the projected growth in demand. While it is questionable whether constraints on aviation growth would satisfy the entire need which the Port has articulated, the fact that the entire need is not met by such an alternative does not render it unreasonable on its face.74/ 4. Development of Alternative Transoortation Modes The examination of all reasonable alternatives requires analysis of other modes of transportation that could meet some or all of the need for increased air transportation capacity in the Puget Sound region. Approximately one -fifth of the flights at SEA are between Seattle and Portland, Oregon or Vancouver, B.C.225i In 1992, travel between these cities accounted for nearly 70,000 of the 346,000 non -cargo aircraft operations at SEA,' and studies by the Port predict that travel between Seattle and Portland and Vancouver will continue to grow into the next century.22 i Because of the proximity of Portland and Vancouver, high -speed rail would divert many origination and destination commuter passengers from SEA. It also would eliminate many connecting commuter passengers who board aircraft in Portland, change at SEA and continue onto Vancouver, or to intermediate points north of Seattle. Such a rail system potentially could be initiated quickly with Amtrak service similar to that which presently exists between New York City and Washington, D.C. Service could then be upgraded by the introduction of high -speed rail or other technologically - advanced equipment, such as magnetic levitation trains. The Vancouver to Seattle to Portland corridor 22`/ Placing constraints on growth of demand is not the same as the no- action alternative. The latter assumes that there is nQ federal action, in which case demand is allowed to grow according to market conditions and likely would become constrained by market forces. In the former situation, the FAA (in cooperation with the Port) would impose regulations or controls on growth of demand so that demand is controlled in an orderly fashion. 226' Flight Plan EIS at 3 -6. au/ kL 227/ kL Page 66 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS already has been designated as one of five high -speed rail corridors by the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act .211/ That designation has enabled federal funds to be used for the removal of grade crossing and other system impediments to the development of high -speed rail networks. High -speed rail is no longer a futuristic concept. Fast, reliable trains already have absorbed some of the air transportation capacity demands in the Northeast. Trains can be expected to provide passengers with an alternative to flying in the Pacific Northwest. As a result, present air capacity demand at SEA would decrease and future demand would increase more slowly than originally projected. The Port's lack of interest in transportation modes over which it has no control or jurisdiction must not be allowed to undermine the consideration of the high -speed rail alternative in the EIS. 5. Alternative Runway Locations and Configurations The EIS must analyze alternative runway locations that would meet the need for increased air transportation demand at SEA. Although the Flight Plan EIS does not identify a preferred alternative, the Port has selected a location for its proposed third runway at SEA' "Such a runway would be approximately 7,000 feet long and located along the western boundary of the existing Airport property about 2,500 feet west of the existing eastern most runway. "1 While the Port's conclusions are relevant for the FAA in preparing the EIS, they should not be the sole basis upon which the FAA considers or rejects potential alternative ways of expanding SEA. The EIS also must examine alternatives relating to different runway lengths. For example, constructing a short runway which necessarily would be limited to general !iv Pub. L. No. 102 -240, 105 Stat. 1914 (1991). 221/ Flight Plan EIS at 3 -7. 3.12, Page 67 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS aviation or small commuter aircraft traffic, would provide additional capacity, but might produce significantly less noise impacts and might be considerably less expensive. The EIS examination of runway lengths must consider not only existing FAA regulations (and air traffic practices) relating to the desirable length of runways and separation requirements, but also probable or potential changes in those regulations because of changes in technology or in composition of the aircraft fleet using SEA. In the EIS, the FAA and the Port must set forth the criteria by which potential alternatives are accepted or rejected and must evaluate all potential alternatives in order to develop a list of reasonable alternatives. Again, while the FAA's criteria for selection of on- site alternatives may be similar to those adopted by the Port, those criteria undoubtedly can not be identical because of the different legal, practical, environmental, and economic parameters within which the two agencies operate. For example, the possibility that other runway configurations at SEA may be more expensive does not render them unreasonable. Other configurations may have benefits which the proposed location of the a third parallel runway does not fulfill. Other configurations may well involve less noise and environmental impacts on the communities surrounding the Airport. 6. No- Action Alternative NEPA and SEPA require that the EIS examine a no- action alternative,'-' and SEPA requires that a delayed action alternative be evaluated as well The no- action alternative must consider the environmental consequences of not undertaking the proposed action.m' The analysis of the no- action alternative must do more than state that the underlying need would not be met; it must inform the public and the decisionmakers of the 231 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(2). WAC 197-11 - 44015)(c)(vii). "The agency perspective should be that each generation is, in effect, a trustee for the environment for succeeding generations. Particular attention should be given to the possibility of foreclosing future options by implementing the proposal." id,,, aa' CEO Questions and Answers on National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, Env't Rep. (BNA) 41:2701. Page 68 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS environmental consequences of not meeting the need. Most importantly, the EIS analysis of the no- action alternative must assume that the FAA takes n4 action to supplement existing capacity of Airport facilities anywhere in the Puget Sound region. The no- action alternative must assume that the FAA will continue any existing or projected actions which are not related to the proposed expansion of SEA but which might affect aviation demand in the future. The EIS must explain all assumptions which underlie the no- action alternative, including assumptions relating to ► adoption of advanced technology (e.g., CRDA radar technology or GPS navigation) and its ability to aid in increasing capacity at SEA; ► reduction in minimum runway separation for parallel independent operations in IFR weather conditions; ► construction, use, capacity of, and demand at reliever airports; ► implementation of demand and system management programs at SEA; and ► changes in fleet mix of commercial air carriers which serve (or will serve) SEA. All such assumptions must be disclosed so that the public and federal decision - makers have a reasoned basis upon which to assess the likelihood that the no- action condition will occur as projected. Each of these assumptions must be considered because it appears possible that changes in any one of these factors may allow the existing SEA facilities to provide an acceptable level of service considerably longer into the future than projected in the Flight Plan EIS. The EIS must clearly distinguish between the no- action and the no -build alternatives. 7. Alternatives to Connected and Similar Actions Associated With the Proposed Action The EIS must examine alternatives for the connected, cumulative and similar actions which are to be examined in the EIS. For example, the PSRC is preparing a study of a supplemental airport, and the FAA is considering revisions to the Four Post Plan. The EIS Page 69 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS must consider these actions and their bearing on the discussion and analysis of other alternatives. Additionally, alternative locations for any new facilities must be examined. The EIS discussion of alternatives can not be limited to examining alternatives to the major project elements (i.e., runways and terminals). The EIS can not ignore alternatives to project elements of connected, cumulative, and similar actions within the context of each alternative to the major project elements. Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS V. IMPACTS WHICH MUST BE EXAMINED IN THE EIS A. Direct and Indirect Impacts An EIS must consider both the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action and its alternatives.24' Direct impacts 35' are those "caused by the action and occur at the same time and place, "m' and indirect impacts "are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. "222' NEPA and SEPA regulations further delineate several specific impacts which must be addressed in an EIS.238' To assist the FAA and the Port in the preparation of the EIS for the proposed expansion of SEA, these comments will discuss some of the environmental impacts which must be addressed and the type of data that should be evaluated in the EIS. 1. Noise High noise exposure levels already cause significant problems for the communities surrounding SEA.23s' For example, nighttime aircraft operations at SEA often generate single event noise levels of 80 dB even several miles south of the Airport.m' Severe Airport - related noise problems in the vicinity of SEA have prompted the Port to undertake noise compatibility planning in accordance with FAA regulations241 and to enter into a 23t' 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(c)(1), (2). 236' In the CEO regulations the terms "impacts" and "effects" are used synonymously. 5.12 : § 1508.8. 201 11 § 1508.8(a). 237/ �: § 1508.8(b). my Order 5050.4A, 1 85; WAC 197 -11- 060(4), - 440(6), -444. 22' Sea -Tac International Airport, 1991 Noise Exposure Map Update (Final) (1993) at App. D ( "1991 NEM Update "). 3. ' Regional Comm'n on Airport Affairs ( "RCAA "), Optimum Enrichment Noise Report, Sea -Tac Noise Study (Jan. 28, 1993) at Tables C, D. 2` —' 40 C.F.R. Part 150. En § III.B, suora, for a description of the Port's Part 150 Program. Page 71 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS Mediation Agreement with Airport users, the FAA, local governments and community groups.242r The Mediation Agreement was designed to produce an overall noise reduction of approximately 50 percent in communities near SEA.' The Mediation Agreement, however, did not anticipate the construction of a third runway at SEA, and it is probable that the addition of another runway and increased numbers of operations at SEA would cause residences in the neighborhoods near the Airport to continue to be subjected to unacceptable noise levels. Flight paths for the proposed runway likely would cause aircraft to overfly many areas that do not currently experience unacceptable levels of aircraft noise, thereby subjecting new properties to the effects of airport noise. The noise effects of the proposed third runway would be most acute in residential neighborhoods in Des Moines, Normandy Park, Burien and the North Hill community, particularly west of 16th Avenue South. Many of the potentially affected residential neighborhoods are not included in the Port's Part 150 Program (which provides for the installation in residences of sound insulation materials). Even residences eligible for the Port's sound insulation program would obtain relief only from high interior noise levels. High outdoor noise levels would continue to erode the enjoyment of property and the quality of life in communities near the Airport. Many of the residents of the area west of 16th Avenue South purchased homes in that location based upon the Port's frequent assurances that it had no intention of constructing any additional runways at SEA. '21/ The third runway proposal also would increase noise levels in area schools. The Port's most recent noise exposure map indicates that a large number of schools currently are located within the Ldn contour for 65, 70 or 75 dB ' Table 2 contains a list of schools currently exposed to high noise levels. Interior single event noise levels in excess of 85 dB have been measured in at least one school district.' If a third runway were constructed 24422/ Mediation Agreement. 512 § III.B, supra, for a description of the Mediation Agreement. 2431 Mediation Agreement at 2. 2,ag infra note 265. 2461 1991 NEM Update App. D. 24e/ RCAA, James C. Chulupnik, Noise from Sea -Tac Airport: Adverse Affects on the Health of Puget Sound Citizens (Jan. 26, 1993) at 2. Page 72 r C Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS at SEA, many of the schools currently subjected to noise exposure of Ld„ in excess of. 65 dB may not realize the contemplated decrease in aircraft noise, particularly those schools located under the western flight paths. With approximately 6,000 students enrolled in schools within a few miles of SEA, increased aircraft operations and altered flight paths would harm the quality of eduction in local schools. Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS SCHOOLS EXPOSED TO AVERAGE NOISE LEVELS OF 65 Lc„ OR GREATER (1991► 1991: Noise: ', Level ;(Ldp) Projected 1996 Noise Level: (La„) Cascade View Elem. 13601 - 32nd South South Central 65 -69 <65 Cedarhurst Elem. 611 South 132nd Highline 65 -69 <65 Des Moines Elem. 22001 - 9th South Highline 65 -69 65 -69 Hilltop Elem. 12250 - 24th South Highline 70 -74 65 -69 Holy Innocents Elem. 2530 South 298th Private 65 -69 <65 Madrona Elem. 3030 South 204th Highline 65 -69 65 -69 Mark Twain Bern. 2450 S. Star Lake Rd. Federal Way 65 -69 <65 Midway Elem. 22447 - 24th South Highline 75+ 70 -74 New Life Christian Academy 21650 - 24th South Private 75 + 70 -74 North Hill Elem. 19835 - 8th South Highline 65 -69 65 -69 Olympic Elem. 615 South 200th Highline 65 -69 <65 Parkside Elem. 2104 South 247th Highline 70 -74 70 -74 Riverton Hts. Elem. 3011 South 148th Highline 65 -69 65 -69 St. Philomena Bern. 1815 South 220th Private 75 + 75 + Seattle Christian 19835 - 8th South Private 65 -69 65 -69 Southern Hts. Elem. 11249 - 14th South Highline 70 -74 65 -69 Sunnydale Elem. 15631 - 8th South Highline 65 -69 <65 Wildwood Elem. 2405 South 300th Federal Way 65 -69 <65 Cleveland Elem. 5511 - 15th Street Seattle 65 -69 <65 Woodmont Elem. 26454 - 16th South Federal Way 70 -74 65 -69 Pacific Middle School 22705 - 24th Place S. Highline 75+ 70 -74 Page 74 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS TABLE 2 • SCHOOLS EXPOSED TO AVERAGE NOISE LEVELS OF 65 I.& OR GREATER 91 School School District .• Noise Projected 1996 Noise Level (Ldfl) Evergreen Lutheran High School 2021 South 260th Private 70-74 65-69 Mount Rainier High School 22450 - 19th South High line 75+ 70-74 Satellite Alternative High School 440 South 186th High line 65-69 <65 Seattle Christian High School 19639 - 28th South Private 75+ 75+ Sea-Tac Occupational Skills Center 18018 - 8th South High line 65-69 65-69 Hamlin Robinson 10211 - 12th South Private 65-69 <65 Dominion College 21024 - 24th South 75+ 70-74 High line Community College 2400 South 240th 75+ 70-74 SOURCE: Port of Seattle, Noise Exposure Map Update (Final), Seattle-Tacoma Intl Airport (1991). Page 75 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS Current operations at SEA subject many other noise sensitive resources -- such as hospitals, nursing homes and churches, as shown in Table 3 -- to average noise levels of 65 dB or greater.2.0 The Port has estimated that the number of noise sensitive areas exposed to Ldf in excess of 65 dB would decline by 1996, a prediction upon which residents in these communities have relied. The construction and operation of a third runway at SEA, however, likely would prevent a number of hospitals, nursing homes and churches near SEA from realizing significant reductions in their noise exposure levels. Moreover, many locations could be expected to be exposed to even higher numbers of overflights and to greater noise levels than they experience today. FAA regulations require that the noise impacts associated with the proposed actions and the alternatives to those actions be considered in the EIS. 48' Accordingly, the EIS must collect baseline noise data and analyze the increased noise impacts that would result from increased operations at SEA under the Port's proposal and each alternative. 142' 1991 NEM Update at D -10, Table D -3. av Order 5050.4A 1 85a. Page 76 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS TABLE 3 SELECTED NOISE SENSITIVE PROPERTIES IN COMMUNITIES ADJACENT TO SEATTLE- TACOMA <: INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Property Location St. David of Wales Anglican Parish 22975 - 24th South Assembly of God 26421 Pacific Hwy. South Assembly of God Church of Des Moines 21650 - 24th South Crossroads Assembly 26454 - 16th South First Baptist Church of Des Moines 22415 - 19th South Sound View Baptist Church 2045 South 216th Victory Baptist Church 1807 South 223rd St. Philomena Catholic Church 1790 South 222nd Christian Tabernacle Church 25234 Pacific Hwy. South Midway Community Covenant Church 22460 - 24th South Des Moines Foursquare Church 2038 South 222nd Grace Lutheran Church 22975 - 24th South Lutheran Church of the Resurrection - Missouri Synod 134 South 206th Des Moines United Methodist Church 22225 - 9th South Amazing Grace Christian Center 21625 - 29th South Christian Faith Center 21024 - 24th South Des Moines Gospel Chapel 21914 - 7th South Eternal Temple of Truth & Light 25040 Pacific Hwy. South Seattle Full Gospel Church 24645 Pacific Hwy. South Highline Reformed Presbyterian Church 106 South 206th Page 77 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS TABLE .3 SELECTED NOISE SENSITIVE PROPERTIES IN COMMUNITIES ADJACENT TO SEATTLE - TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Property Location Marcus Whitman Presbyterian Church 2130 South 248th First Unitarian Universalist Church of Seattle 25701 - 14th Place South Des Moines Masonic Temple 2208 South 223rd Dance Club West 25600 Pacific Hwy. South Zenith Place 1826 South 240th Des Moines Yacht Club 22737 Marine View Drive South North Hill Community Club 4th Avenue South Wesley Homes - The Gardens 815 South 216th Street Wesley Homes - The Terrace 816 South 216th Street Wesley Homes Health Center 1122 South 216th Street Masonic Home of Washington 24660 Marine View Drive South Judson Park 23600 Marine View Drive South Caldwell Health Center 23620 Marine View Drive South SeaToma Convalescent Center 2800 South 224th Street Des Moines Vista 21202 Pacific Hwy. South Midway Manor Convalescent 24215 Pacific Hwy. South Monarch Care 21428 Pacific Hwy. South Highline Community Hospital 16251 Sylvester Road Southwest Highline Specialty Center 12400 Military Road John Knox Church 106 Southwest Normandy Road Normandy Park Congregational Church 19247 First Avenue South Page 78 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOP /NG COMMENTS TABLE 3 SELECTED NOISE. SENSITIVE PROPERTIES IN COMMUNITIES ADJACENT TO SEATTLE- TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Property .: Location Southgate Assembly of God 16625 First Avenue South Three Tree Point Baptist Church 16261 First Avenue South Seahurst Medical Center 16110 - 8th Avenue, SW, Building A Highline Care Center 220 Southwest 160th Speech and Healing Center, Highline Community Hospital 14400 Ambaum Boulevard SW Group Health Clinic 140 Southwest 146th Apostolic Bible Church of Jesus Christ 12412 Des Moines Memorial Drive First Tongan Assembly of God 11824 - 10th SW 625 Bible Church 625 Southwest 149th St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church 15236 - 21st SW Tenth Church of Christ, Scientist 223 South 156th Seattle Stake Center SW 142nd and Ambaum Boulevard SW Gregory Heights Community Church 16241 - 19th SW Assembly of God 15434 - 10th SW Southgate Assembly of God 16625 - 1st South St. Bernadette's Catholic Church 1015 SW 126th Highline Christian Church 14859 - 1st South Church of Christ of Burien 720 South 140th Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints SW 142nd and Ambaum Boulevard SW Three Tree Community Baptist Church 16261 - 1st South Page 79 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS SELECTED NOISE SENSITIVE PROPERTIES IN COMMUNITIES ADJACENT TO SEATTLE-TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT St. Elizabeth Episcopal Church 1005 SW 152nd Burien Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses 16715 Ambaum Boulevard SW Glendale Evangelical Lutheran Church 13455 - 2nd Avenue SW Highline United Methodist Church 13015 - 1st South Chelsea Park Assembly 632 Southwest 143rd Street Seattle Household of Faith 625 Southwest 152nd Jehovah's Witness - Boulevard Park 228 South 128th Burien Free Methodist Church 520 South 150th Hope Christian Fellowship 14925 - 22nd SW Lake Burien Presbyterian Church 15003 - 14th SW Church By the Side of the Road 3455 S. 148th Street Foster Tukwila Presbyterian 14401 56th Avenue South Riverton Heights Presbyterian Southcenter Community Baptist St. Thomas Catholic Church 15880 Military Road South 14742 Macadam Road South 4415 South 140th Street Page 80 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS The FAA must examine the effect of noise on newly exposed noise - sensitive areas as well as the dispersion of noise over a larger area surrounding the Airport. Such areas include the following: • parks and recreation areas; • historic structures and locations; • residential communities; • schools; • health related facilities; • cultural resources; • businesses; and • houses of worship. The noise analysis must include an examination of impacts within the Ld„ contour of 65 dB249' and the effect upon noise- sensitive areas outside the Ld„ contour of 65 dB. The EPA has stated that "limiting noise analysis to the Ld„ 65 contours does not provide adequate disclosure of all significant noise impacts. "' In a recent rulemaking,25t' the FAA apparently endorsed the EPA's position that it should "modify the definition of [noise study area] so as to eliminate the perception that the area with the DNL 65 dB contour is the sole area to be considered for noise impacts, while retaining the flexibility of extending beyond the DNL 65 dB contour. "m' The EIS must lS. 1 85a(1). mg/ Letter from Richard E. Sanderson, Director, Office of Fed. Activities, U.S. Envt'I Protection Agency to Office of the Chief Counsel, Fed. Aviation Admin. (Jan. 18, 1989) (attachment: EPA's Detailed Comments Concerning FAA's Notice on Airport Noise Compatibility Planning). 2§/' Preamble, 56 Fed. Reg. 48,661, 48,669 -70 (1991) (codified at 14 C.F.R. Part 161). at 48,670. Page 81: Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS acknowledge, therefore, the existence of credible evidence that even relatively low average noise levels can adversely affect a community when pre- existing noise levels were comparatively low or when single noise events are particularly intrusive.?' In addition, the EIS must analyze the noise effects of the proposed expansion using metrics other than the Ldn metric. Although the Ld„ metric includes calculations of the noise produced by single- events, the number of events, and the time of day when the events occur, the Ldn metric obscures the impacts of each of these factors alone and does not provide any useful information about the level of noise attributable to individual overflights. The effect of noise upon a number of noise - sensitive areas in the vicinity of SEA can not be described adequately or analyzed solely using the Ldn metric. Activities that take place primarily during the day or in the early evening when the number of Airport operations are at their peak can not be represented accurately by an Ldn contour. Therefore, the impact of noise on public schools, on health care and retirement facilities, or on the normal business activities of commercial establishments can not be evaluated through the exclusive use of the Ldn metric. A number of different noise metrics must be used to examine the effects on these noise - sensitive institutions and activities. The FAA on occasion has agreed to perform single -event analysis "for ... EISs for projects resulting in a significant change in an existing airport's commercial /cargo operational characteristics. "2a/ Similar studies should be included in the EIS for the proposed expansion of SEA. Consistent with the criteria applied elsewhere, the Port's expansion proposal certainly would result in a significant change in the existing commercial /cargo operation characteristics at SEA.2s' Consequently, it is critical that the FAA include single -event noise analysis in the EIS in order to evaluate adequately the noise impacts which the Port's proposal and its alternatives would have on the Puget Sound region. Harris, A.S., Review of Community Responses to Changes in Noise Exposure (Nov. 1990) (six case studies indicating that any increase in noise levels can negatively affect a community even though outside of the Ld„ contour of 65 dB). an Exhibit 5. Letter from Barry L. Harris, Deputy Administrator U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Aviation Admin., to F. Henry Habicht, II, Deputy Administrator, U.S. Envtl. Protection Agency (June 15, 1990) at 3. ass! See. ca., Flight Plan EIS. Page 82 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS Because the EIS will be prepared jointly by the Port and the FAA, the adequacy of the document cannot be judged solely by reference to prior FAA - generated EISs. The Port has an independent obligation to assess the noise impacts from the proposed third runway. The Port may not fulfill its obligations under SEPA merely by echoing the FAA's policies and regulations on analysis of noise.' Specifically, although the FAA may insist that it has no obligation to examine noise impacts outside the Ld„ contour and that it has no obligation to use metrics other than the Ld„, the Port must recognize the considerable scientific debate over the propriety of the FAA's threshold of significance and its sole reliance on the Ld„ metric.2' To fulfill its obligations under SEPA, the Port must include in the EIS (1) noise analysis using single -event noise metrics, and (2) analysis of noise impacts in excess of 60 dB Ld„ and in excess of an SEL of 85 dB. The EIS also must include studies of the noise effects which would result from construction and operation of the Port's Airport expansion proposal. Site preparation and construction of the proposed third runway would take as long as six years to complete.2 In addition to the high noise levels associated with most heavy construction activities, additional noise would be generated in this situation by the thousands of large trucks required for the transportation of 13.7 million cubic yards of fill material necessary to provide a stable base for the runway .2a/ 3- e' See. e.a., WAC 197 -11- 630(1). X67 au National Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. FAA, 998 F.2d 1523, 1532 -33 (10th Cir. 1993). See also Federal Interagency Committee on Noise, Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Issues (Aug. 1992) ('FICON Report'). she, age letter from Gary Grant, Pres. Port of Seattle Comm'n, to Wade Bryant, Manager Seattle ADO, Fed. Aviation Admin. (Aug. 24, 1993) attachment at 5 (indicating that the proposed SEA expansion is expected to begin in 1997 and be completed in 2002). my act Puget Sound Regional Council, The Regional Airport System Plan Alternatives: Flight Plan Workshop II (Jan. 21, 1993) at 6. Page 83 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS 2. Land Use SEA is owned and operated by the Port of Seattle, a municipal corporation under Washington state Iaw,280' and it is governed by a five - person elected Commission.m The Airport is located almost entirely within the corporate boundaries of the City of SeaTac, although a portion of Airport property is located in the City of Des Moines.282' Federal law and FAA regulations mandate that the EIS examine the compatibility of the proposed expansion plan with the land use plans of surrounding communities.' SEPA regulations also require the Port to examine the relationship between its expansion proposal and existing land use plans and to discuss the likely impact of a third runway at SEA on land use and the "built environment. "20' Development of a third runway at SEA would conflict with the Mediation Agreement, the Port's Part 150 Program and the Port's 1985 Master Plan Update.' Surrounding jurisdictions have relied upon the assurances and goals in the Mediation Agreement, the Part 150 Program and the 1985 Master Plan in developing comprehensive plans to govern the orderly growth of their communities and to protect desirable land uses, including parks, recreation areas, fish and wildlife habitat areas, wetlands and residential properties. Development of the proposed runway at SEA would alter the expectations of local jurisdictions by subjecting protected land uses to new and additional noise impacts from increased numbers of aircraft operations and altered flight tracks. More importantly, the expansion of SEA would conflict with comprehensive planning undertaken by the cities of Burien, Des Moines, Normandy Park and Tukwila -- among others 312/ RCW 53.04.060. l/ Port Commissioners are elected by the citizens of King County as at -large representatives. em ate 1991 NEM Update. The property within Des Moines was acquired as part of SEA's noise abatement and acquisition program, and is not used for airport operations. Isl, at 1. 263/ 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16(c); Order 5050.4A 11 47e(2), 85(b); 49 U.S.C. app. § 2208(b)(1)(a). s —°', au WAC 197- 11- 440(6)(d)(i), (e), - 444(2)(b)(i). zee' The 1985 Master Plan Update assured the communities surrounding the Airport and no additional runways would be developed at SEA. Peat Marwick, Final Report, Master Plan Update for Sea -Tac International Airport (Sept. 1985) at 2 -3. Page 84 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS -- pursuant to the Washington Growth Management Act ( "GMA ")2' and other state statutes. The GMA, enacted in 1990, created an enforceable planning process to ensure that county and city comprehensive planning are consistent with one another, and to make such plans binding on all jurisdictions, including the state.' The vehicles established by the GMA for accomplishing this objective are comprehensive plans prepared by counties and their constituent cities, and regional transportation plans, prepared by local jurisdictions on a countywide or multi- county basis.20' Comprehensive plans developed pursuant to the GMA must address a wide array of topics including (1) multiple modes of transportation; (2) affordable housing and economic development; (3) open space, recreation, fish and wildlife; (4) air and water quality; (5) public facilities and services; and (6) historical and archaeological sites and structures. Comprehensive plans also must designate where growth is to occur, where new capital facilities will be located and how they will be financed.Z2 Moreover, the GMA requires that plans adopted by the Port for essential public facilities -- such as SEA -- must be consistent with the comprehensive plans of the county and neighboring cities.—°' The GMA mandates a collaborative planning process in which the plans of cities and counties must be coordinated and made consistent with one another 2' Transportation plans have particular consistency requirements. ► The transportation elements of comprehensive plans adopted by counties, cities and towns within a region must conform to the requirements of the GMA and be consistent with regional transportation plans m' r Chapter 36.70A RCW. 2 - - °7r egg ! 36.70A.020. seer 36.70A.010, .040, .210(3)(d), (7). 2eor j 36.70A.020., .070, .080, .110, .200. vs' WAC 365- 195- 340(2)(b)(iv). 227" RCW 36.70A.100. 27�r I� 4/.80.030(1)(a). See also id, 36.70A.070(6). Page 85 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS • the Regional Transportation Planning Organizationm must develop and adopt a regional transportation plan that is consistent with county, city and town comprehensive plans;' and • all transportation projects within a region having an impact on regional facilities or services must be consistent with the regional transportation plan.275' Pursuant to the GMA, the PSRC, as the Regional Transportation Planning Organization, must certify the consistency of regionally significant transportation projects -- such as the Port's proposed expansion of SEA -- with local comprehensive plans and the Regional Transportation Plan .21v Thus, the PSRC has the final authority to determine whether to certify the Port's plans to develop a third runway at SEA. As discussed above,' to date the PSRC has not yet approved the Port's proposed expansion of SEA. If the conditions stipulated in the PSRC resolution' are not met, the PSRC could decline to approve the project, and the Port would not have the legal authority to implement the project. The EIS must examine the effect of PSRC actions on the proposal. 3. Wetlands Wetlands are an important and diminishing natural resource of the United States. They play a crucial role in maintaining high water quality, anchoring shorelines, supporting the aquatic food chain, and providing important habitat for waterfowl, fish and mammals.2 29' 273/ In the Puget Sound region the PSRC is the Regional Transportation Planning Organization. § I.A.1, supra. RCW 47.80.030(1)(b). Therefore, the Regional Airport System Plan must be consistent with both existing local comprehensive plans and those developed pursuant to GMA. 276/ Ii 47.80.030(21. la/ isL 277' § LA.1, supra. 271' PSRC Resolution A -93 -03 Ism Exhibit 4). 3-71' 5.22 U.S. Envtl. Protection Agency, Region YIII, A Citizen's Handbook for Wetlands Protection (1989). Pape 86 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS Considering the importance given to the protection of wetlands, the EIS must examine the impacts which the proposed SEA expansion plan would have on wetlands. For example, the placing of more than 13 million cubic yards of fill necessary to build the third runway is likely to affect several local streams and their associated wetlands. One stream -- Miller Creek -- drains two small lakes (Lake Reba and Lora Lake) near the northwestern boundary of SEA, and flows along the base of the hillside along SEA's western border and through Normandy Park before emptying into Puget Sound. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maps identify several types of palustrine wetlands along a portion of Miller Creek Tying between South 156th Way and State Route 518 and within the City of Sea Tac's corporate boundaries" Additional wetlands are located on SEA property east of State Route 509 and north of 12th Place South." Wetlands at both locations are situated on property that the Port has proposed to acquire -- and may need to alter -- to make way for the proposed third runways Other wetlands in the vicinity are located within Burien" Even wetlands not physically destroyed by construction of a new runway at SEA could be altered or harmed significantly. Construction and operation of a new runway could threaten the existence -- or at least the functionality -- of all wetlands within the Miller, Walker, Massey, Barnes and Des Moines Creek watersheds by increasing the paved areas at the Airport, generating larger volumes of stormwater discharges, and causing increased runoff of chemicals and petroleum -based products used in airport de -icers and jet fuel.i 2991 U.S. Dep't of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv., Nat'l Wetlands Inventory Map, Des Moines, Washington (1987). • aSe City of Des Moines, Washington, Comprehensive Plan (Update), Ordinance 861 - Wetlands Map attachment (Oct. 14, 1992). mi leg Flight Plan EIS at 4 -60. ▪ U.S. Dep't of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv., Nat'l Wetlands Inventory Map. =•' Stormwater treatment facilities as SEA already have been cited by the state Department of Ecology for failure to provide adequate treatment. RCAA Reports, Ingrid Hansen, Water Quality Issues (Jan. 26, 1993). Page 87 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOP/NG COMMENTS The FAA must insure that all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands are included in the Port's proposal:2m FAA regulations require the agency to avoid affecting wetlands and to choose a no- impact alternative, if one is practicable: e—°' In order to engage in construction activity in a wetlands area, the FAA affirmatively must find a. that there is no practicable alternative to such construction, and b. that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such use.m' The EIS must contain a discussion of the basis for any such findings along with a discussion of the various alternatives which have been considered mi The Port then will be required to obtain a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Acts' in order to dredge or fill any affected wetlands. M The FAA is required to insure that the analysis in the EIS also satisfies the NEPA obligations of the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers with respect to any Section 404 permit that those agencies issue :tut VI/ Order 5050.4A 1 85k12)(b). M1/ 1 47e(11 )(e). s °7 Imo. 1 47e(11)(b)2. See also, j 1 83e which requires a finding of "no practicable alternative" for construction activity in a wetland area. MI/ 11 1 85. 4 e1/ 33 U.S.C. § 1344. zto/ MI This requirement is mirrored in the Corps' NEPA regulations which obligate the District Engineer to coordinate with the lead agency as a cooperating agency "to insure that agency's resulting EIS may be adopted by the Corps for purposes of exercising its regulatory authority." 33 C.F.R. Part 325, App. B §8(c). Page 88 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS SEPA regulations require the Port to analyze the effect of the proposed expansion project on the quantity and quality of surface water runoff and on habitat for plants, fish and wildlife.222' Moreover, Washington has its own wetlands protection provisions which compliment and supplement the federal requirements. They are incorporated in an executive order issued by the Governor M and in GMA provisions dealing with critical areas.ssa' In addition, the cities of Normandy Park and Des Moines have adopted ordinances dealing with environmentally sensitive areas (including wetlands) which regulate and restrict development activities in these areas?a' Both cities restrict development in areas in which "significant and important wetlands and their buffers" are located.m Where development is allowed, buffers of 100 feet and 35 feet must be maintained for significant and important wetlands, respectively / A similar regulatory regime is found in Tukwila's Sensitive Area Overlay Zone.22ei The EIS, therefore, must examine the negative impacts which the proposed action could have on wetlands. It must weigh these impacts against the effects of other reasonable alternatives. Further, it must discuss the permitting process and the effect that its requirements would have on the proposed expansion project. Finally, it must consider the restrictions placed on the destruction or degradation of wetlands by state and local laws. 212i WAC 197- 11- 444(a)(c)(ii), (d)(i). 2N' ,egg Flight Plan EIS at 4 -95. RCW 36.70A.170, .060(1); WAC 365 - 190 -040. 2961 Normandy Park, Washington, Mun. Code Ch. 13.16 ("NPMC"); Des Moines, Washington, Mun. Code Ch. 18.86 ( "DMMC "). 31/2' NPMC 13.16.060(a)(1); DMMC 18.86.060(a). Significant and important wetlands are defined in NPMC 13.16.030(52)(A), (B), and DMMC 18.04.663(1), (2). V2' NPMC 13.16.0070(a)(2)(A), (B); DMMC 18.86.070(2)(A), (B). au Tukwila, Washington, Mun. Code Ch. 18.45. Page 89 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS 4. Air Space Construction of a third runway at SEA would complicate the already crowded air space in the Puget Sound region. A study prepared for the FAA has found that the presence of Boeing Field only 5 miles north of SEA limits the ability of the Port to increase SEA's capacity when the Airport is in a north flow configuration, particularly during weather conditions with poor visibility or a low cloud ceiling?' The study found that in the year 2000, even with construction of another runway at SEA, the close proximity of Boeing Field would cause departures to be delayed in excess of 60 minutes during poor weather conditions and north flow configuration' Moreover, by 2015, a three - runway SEA would experience air space gridlock when the Airport is in north flow during poor weather conditions.3 -01' The study concludes that "[a]dding a third runway at SEA would further complicate the airspace interaction between SEA and [Boeing Field]. It may not be possible to develop procedures that will permit full use of the runways at both airports under all conditions. "m/ Consequently, the EIS must examine the effect on Boeing Field operations from a third runway at SEA. The effect of an additional runway at SEA also must be examined in the context of the FAA's Four Post PIan30 -3/ which governs air traffic routes and procedures for aircraft using the congested Seattle -area airspace. A third runway could require modifications in the Four Post Plan which potentially would affect noise exposure levels of residential and other noise sensitive areas and could affect operations at other airports in the region. z =°1 Aviation Systems International, Inc., Impact of Boeing Field Interactions on the Benefits of a Proposed New Runway as Seattle- Tacoma International Airport (July 1992). Approximately 30 percent of annual operations at SEA occur during a north flow configuration. IA, at 8, Figure 2 -1. 3001 Id, at 27. 301 / JA 121' j at 1. v-21 au 4 III.C, supra. Pape, 90 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS The EIS must examine these regional air space allocation issues and determine how the proposed expansion and its alternatives would affect air space conditions and requirements and air traffic patterns in the entire Puget Sound region. 5. Air Quality The increased number of aircraft and ground vehicles which would use an expanded SEA would have a detrimental effect on the air quality of the Puget Sound metropolitan region. Additionally, the disturbance of particulate matter during construction would result in further air quality degradation. The FAA legally is required to examine these and other impacts on regional air quality associated with the Port's proposal for expansion of SEA using baseline data which reflects seasonal variations in air quality. The Puget Sound region currently experiences a number of air quality problems, including a failure to attain state and federal air quality standards for carbon monoxide, particulate matter and ozone.-3-24/ The state Department of Ecology has identified operations at SEA as a contributing factor to the Puget Sound area's failure to attain air quality standards. According to the Department of Ecology, activities at SEA are the source of approximately 5 percent of all nitrogen oxide emissions in King County, and about 8 percent of all carbon monoxide emissions.306/ Increased numbers of aircraft operations at SEA, including taxiing, maintenance, and testing activities -- as well as departures and landings -- collectively could increase substantially the emissions of airborne pollutants at the Airport. Further, by increasing the capacity at SEA, the proposed runway project also could increase considerably vehicle exhaust emissions in the vicinity of the Airport, as greater numbers of passengers travel to the Airport via car, taxi or bus. Thus, construction of a third runway at SEA could exacerbate the existing ill effects of Airport operations on local air quality. The FAA long has recognized the potential for adverse air quality impacts caused by the many activities associated with the operation of an airport. Therefore, the decision 304/ Flight Plan EIS App. D at D -6. 306/ LL at D -7. Page 91 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS whether or not to expand an airport requires that potentially adverse air quality impacts be analyzed thoroughly. The federal Clean Air Act308/ requires each state to submit to the EPA a State Implementation Plan ( "SIP ") which includes state and local legislation, regulations and other necessary measures to achieve and maintain the national ambient air quality standards ( "NAAQS ") "in each air quality control region (or portion thereof) within such State.n30 0 When approved, the SIP, or any approved portion thereof, becomes federally enforceable :au!' The Washington Clean Air Act30 -9i authorizes the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency to implement the requirements of the federal and state clean air statutes on a regional basis.31 —w Section 176(c) of the federal Clean Air Act, as well as the new regulations implementing the provisions of that section, require that no federal agency "shall engage in, support in any way or provide financial assistance for, license or permit, or approve any activity which does not conform to an applicable [state] implementation plan.i3 / The EPA has concluded that new airports and airport expansion projects are federal actions likely to be subject to the conformity provisions of the Clean Air Act.31v Conformity is s0E/ 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et sea. 1 § 7410(a)(1). soe' kL § 7413. sour Chapter 70.94 RCW. MI 70.94.053. 31 " 58 Fed. Reg. 63,214, 63,253 (1993) Ito be codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 51, subpart W § 51.850(a) and 40 C.F.R. Part 93, subpart B § 93.150(a)). ai Preamble, 58 Fed. Reg. at 63,223. Although airport projects generally are not direct federal undertakings, FAA funding statutes require that grants for airport development or expansion be conditioned on the adoption of mitigation measures to achieve conformity with state SIPs. These grant conditions are incorporated into grant agreements and become part of an enforceable contract between the FAA and the grant recipient. IC Thus, the FAA's role in airport development or expansion projects should be considered to be a "Federal action" as defined in the EPA regulations. Page 92 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS determined in accordance with the specific and detailed procedures set forth in the conformity regulations.313/ Similarly, Section 509 of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act prohibits FAA approval of any airport expansion project unless the Governor of the affected state certifies that the location, design, construction and operation of the project will comply with applicable air and water quality standards./ SEPA regulations also require the EIS to include an examination by the Port of the effects of the its proposed third - runway project on air quality / If it is determined that the proposed expansion of SEA (and its connected actions)31 e/ is not consistent with the Washington SIP, mitigation or offset measures must be developed to "bring the project within conformance" to the SIP.317' If the project still results in a violation of NAAQS, "then further considerations must be given to alternative airport designs or operating procedures which will reduce pollutants to the acceptable levels. "3131 —e/ The results of all air quality analyses must be "documented for inclusion" in the EIS.31s' The exhaustive analysis of air quality effects, required by federal and state law, would provide the information essential to formulating a reasoned determination on the air quality impacts of the proposed SEA expansion proposal. 313' 58 Fed. Reg. 63,214. 3141 49 U.S.C. app. § 2208(b)(711A). 316/ WAC 197- 111- 444(1)(b►(i). 31161 Order 5050.4A 1 26(d). 3111 U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Aviation Admin., Report No. FAA- EE- 81 -21, Air quality Procedures for Civilian Airports and Air Force Bases (Dec. 1982) ( "FAA Air Quality Handbook ") at 11 -4. ME at Er id, Pepe 93 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS 6. Surface Transportation SEPA requires that the EIS consider the effect on surface transportation of the proposed expansion at SEA.22' According to current traffic studies, surface streets around SEA already are highly congested. Most key intersections operate at the worst possible levels of service.ul1 Travel on highways in the vicinity of SEA continues to increase more rapidly than the population and the number of jobs m' Therefore, it is not surprising that surface transportation delay in 1990 was estimated at 200,000 vehicle hours per year, and it is projected to increase by 20 percent by 2020.x' Existing ground congestion would be made significantly worse by expansion of the Airport. The construction of an additional runway at SEA and new passenger facilities can be expected to increase the number of passengers using the Airport, thereby increasing the number of motor vehicles jamming the already overcrowded streets and roads surrounding the Airport. The dangerously congested surface streets near the Airport would, in turn, prevent SEA from operating effectively. In addition, the approximately six years it would take to prepare the site and construct the runway would further overburden the neighboring road system. Because of the enormous quantity of fill required for runway construction, trucks delivering fill to the runway construction site would cause significant problems for surface streets near the Airport. An estimated 1,300 truckloads of fill per days' would have to be transported to the Airport to deliver the required amount of fill over the six -year construction period.' This 3?or WAC 197- 11- 444(1)(c). 22.11 For example, the intersection of 1 -5 and State Route 405 near SEA is at gridlock for increasing portions of each day. nar Flight Plan EIS at 4 -40. r j at 4 -40, 4 -41. Mt Based on 10 cubic yards of fill per truck. Bali Turner, Collie & Braden, Statement . of Qualifications for Preliminary Engineering for a Third Dependent Runway at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport (June 8, 1993) at 1 -33. Page 94 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS increased construction - related traffic could generate serious gridlock conditions on already heavily congested area streets and roads particularly during the hours each day when it is estimated there will be 100 trips per hour' The EIS must examine the effect on the local road system of (1) the SEA construction project; (2) the operation of an expanded SEA (attributable both to a new runway and to additional passenger and cargo facilities); and (3) the alternative proposals. Among other considerations, the discussion should focus on emergency access plans, passage for emergency vehicles, reduced levels of service for streets and intersections below locally adopted standards, increased traffic volumes on typical local and minor collector streets, and peak hour traffic effects./ Although NEPA does not require the FAA specifically to discuss the effect on surface transportation of the proposed third runway at SEA, the EIS must include an examination of the construction impacts of the proposed project.328/ In fact, where construction activities would create severe impacts that can not be mitigated, the EIS must contain a thorough discussion of those impacts.2" 7. Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act and Section 509 of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from approving any transportation project (including an airport improvement project) which requires the "use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance, or land of an historic 327/ Streets that should be evaluated in the EIS include, among others, Pacific Highway South, 42nd Avenue South, Macadam Road, 51st Avenue South, South 54th Street, South 160th Street, South 212th Street, South 216th Street, Ambaum Boulevard Southwest, Des Moines Memorial Drive, SW 148th Street, First Avenue South and Military Road. an' Order 5050.4A 1 85s. Page 95 r L Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS site of national, State or local significancen33o' unless there is "no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land "33 ' and the proposed project "includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use. "m' Thus, Section 4(f) grafts substantive environmental considerations onto the procedural aspects of NEPA. The FAA's proposed use of federal funds to support construction of the proposed Airport expansion also triggers the applicability of Section 509(b)(5) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act,333' which imposes obligations with respect to resources similar to those protected in Section 4(f).334 An alternative is "feasible" if it can be built as a matter of sound engineering.335' An alternative is "prudent" unless there are "truly unusual factors present in a particular case or the cost of community disruption resulting from alternativets] ... reach(] extraordinary magnitudes," or the other alternatives themselves "present unique problems. "338' The requirements of Section 4(f) can be triggered by activities which do not result in the actual "acquisition" of protected lands, but which nonetheless "impair substantially the In' 49 U.S.C. § 303(c). Land protected by section 4(f) hereinafter be referred to as "Section 4(f) lands." 3311 j § 303(c)(1) 332' § 303(c)(2). 3331 49 U.S.C. app. § 2208(b)(5). 3341 Courts invariably have looked to the Supreme Court's interpretation of section 4(f) in Citizens to Preserve Overton Park (Overton Park) v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971) for guidance in interpreting the Airport Act. ail Life of the Land v. Brineoar, 485 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1973), cert, denied, 416 U.S. 961 (1974). Citizens Airoort Comm. v. Voloe, 351 F. Supp. 52, 60 -61 (E.D. Va. 1972). 336 / Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 411; Druid Hills Civic Ass'n v. Federal Hiohwav Admin., 772 F.2d 700, 715 (11th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 819 (1988). 33e/ Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 413. Page 96 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS value of the site in terms of its environmental, ecological, or historical significance. " -41/ Consequently, the effect that the proposed project would have upon the utility or importance of Section 4(f) land is the determining factor in the analysis, rather than the distance between the proposed project and the Section 4(f) land.' For example, increased noise and air pollution can be substantial enough to constitute a use of Section 4(f) land that triggers the protections afforded by that statutory provision.nv The proposed construction of a third runway at SEA may require the Port to acquire one or two historic sites, each of which may qualify as a Section 4(f) property. As shown in Table 4, a number of other historic properties currently lie within the noise - affected area for SEA operations,340i and they can be expected to experience significant increases in noise exposure if a third runway is constructed at SEA. In addition, aircraft using a third runway at SEA are likely to cause a considerable increase in the noise level exposure of numerous parks near the Airport including Saltwater State Park, Zenith Park, Des Moines Creek Park, Marine View Park, Nature Trails Park, Miller Creek Open Space, Normandy Park Recreation Center, Barnes Creek Nature Trail, Des Moines Beach Park and tidelands, Des Moines Fieldhouse, Parkside and Woodmont. Aircraft noise can constitute a "use" of Section 4(f) resources if future noise impacts would exceed current noise levels.-/ -w Citizen Advocates for Responsible Expansion. Inc. (I -CARE) v. Dole, 770 F.2d 423, 441 (5th Cir. 1985); see also Allison v. United States Dept of Transo., 908 F.2d 1024, 1028 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Rinosred v. Dole, 828 F.2d 1300, 1301 (8th Cir. 1987); Stop H -3 Ass'n v. Dole, 740 F.2d 1442 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 110811985); Adler v. Lewis, 675 F.2d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 1982); Louisiana Envtl. Soc'v. Inc. v. Coleman, 537 F.2d 79, 84 -85 (5th Cir. 1976); D.C. Fed'n of Civic Ass'ns v. Volpe, 459 F.2d 1231, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1030 (1972). DA/ Adler, 675 F.2d at 1091 -92. 2n/ Coalition Against a Raised Expressway. Inc. v. Dole, 835 F.2d 803, 811 -12 (11th Cir. 1988). 340/ 1991 NEM Update at App. D. 341/ Allison, 908 F.2d at 1028; Sierra Club v. United States Dept of Transo., 753 F.2d 120, 128 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Page 97 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS TABLE 4 SELECTED. PROPERTIES IN COMMUNITIES ADJACENT TO SEATTLE - TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT WITH HISTORIC, ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE Property Location Des Moines I.O.O.F. Lodge #305 (Community Club Hall) 728 South 225th Pedersen House (Van Gasken House) 402 South 222nd Old Gay House (Latimer House) 21617 7th Place South Hacker Residence (Finnel House, Dickenson House) 22514 - 6th South Elsey House 921 South 223rd Case Home 22006 - 10th South Roger Fotte Residence (Rayback House) 22018 - 11th South Walsworth House 1104 South 223rd Pool Residence (L.H. Smith House) 22204 - 9th South McConnaughey Residence (Lindahl House) 304 South 216th Whisler Residence (Chesney House) 1255 South 216th Des Moines Field House (WPA Park Building) 1000 South 220th Jacob Reith Homestead (Muckleshoot Indian Campground) 26225 Pacific Hwy. South Des Moines Beach Park (Covenant Beach Historic District) 22030 Cliff Avenue South Masonic Home of Washington 23660 Marine View Drive South Tracy House (F. L. Wright Design) 18971 Edgecliff Drive SW Longridge House (Original Normandy Park Clubhouse) 1865 Miller Creek Road SW Page 98 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS • „ . ....... SELECTED PROPERTIES IN COMMUNITIES ADJACENT TO SEATTLE-TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT WITH HISTORIC, ARCHITECTURAL. ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR CULTURAL .... SIGNIFJCANCE , ... , . . . . ... . . . Moore House 18521 Brittany Drive SW Dodd Homestead a.k.a. Sutton Farms Des Moines Memorial Way Highline High School 606 South 140th The Easterly Boundary of the City of Burien 225 South 152nd Page 99 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS Absent a thorough analysis of alternatives that would avoid Section 4(f) lands and a determination that no feasible and prudent alternative exists, the project can not go forward. As to each Section 4(f) property, the EIS must document its current use and the degree to which the use would be affected by the proposed Airport expansion. The EIS must discuss both the average and maximum noise levels (on a daily and annual basis) at Section 4(f) properties which would be noise - affected. The EIS must disclose the increase in noise levels for each year, not just those for selected target years in the future. Analysis which does not exhaustively examine impacts to Section 4(f) lands would render the EIS objectionable. While the Port is not governed directly by Section 4(f), SEPA regulations require the EIS to discuss the effect of the proposed expansion project on recreation plans, historic and cultural preservation activities, parks and other recreational, and historic and cultural resources.342/ 8. Historic, Architectural. Archeological. and Cultural Resources The National Historic Preservation Act34 —v provides that every federal agency, prior to approving the expenditure of any federal funds on an airport project, must "take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register" of historic sites.3434' The FAA must consider the impacts which a project may have on both eligible and listed historic sites, and must engage in consultation with the appropriate state historic preservation officer34si prior to an attempt to avoid or mitigate such impacts. The Port also is required 342/ 343/ WAC 197- 11- 440(6)(d)(iv), - 44412)1b)(v), (vi), (d)liv). 16 U.S.C. § § 470a -470w. 344/ kL § 470f. 3461 Washington law designates the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, within the Department of Community Development, as the State office with principal responsibility for protecting the State's historic and archaeological properties. RCW 27.34.210 -.220. An employee of that office is the designated "preservation officer" for the State. LC 27.34.210. Page 100 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS by SEPA to consider the effects of its proposed expansion project on historic and cultural preservation activities and on historic and cultural resources./ Historic or archaeological sites may be disturbed by exposure to severe noise levels or by being subjected to the effects of noise vibration. As discussed above,' it is possible that two historic sites would be physically destroyed by construction of the proposed Airport expansion project. Other properties would be subject to increased noise exposures and vibrations.3aw It is, therefore, necessary for the EIS to examine not only the impacts of noise, but also the impacts of vibrations which fall outside the range examined in a noise analysis. 9. Water Quality NEPA and SEPA regulations mandate consideration in the EIS of the water quality impacts of the proposed expansion of SEA.2' Analysis of water quality should use baseline data from seasonal high and low flow events. Miller Creek and Des Moines Creek each drain a portion of the Airport site and /or land in the vicinity of the Airport. As a result, operations at SEA already have had a damaging effect on these creeks, and construction of a third runway would exacerbate existing surface water quality problems. The additional runway and increased use of Airport facilities could further overload the capacity of the Port's permitted industrial wastewater treatment facility which collects wastewater and pollutant runoff from fueling, maintenance and de -icing activities at SEA.321' In addition, SEA operations also may have contributed to groundwater contamination of aquifers underlying the Airport area that are used for drinking water supply. The City of Seattle operates three groundwater wells in the Riverton Heights area of the City of SeaTac, 346/ 347/ 346/ at/ 360/ WAC 1 97- 1 1- 44016)Id)liv), - 444(2)(b)(vi). §gg I V.A.7, suora. 5.12 Table 4. Order 5050.4A 1 85f; WAC 197- 11- 444(1)(c). Flight Plan EIS at 4 -106. Page 101 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS and takes water from the wells for municipal use from July to October. These wells could become contaminated by leaking fuel storage tanks and improper handling of petroleum products and hazardous wastes at SEA. The EIS must examine the effects on the Miller, Walker, Massey, Barnes, Fostoria, Gilliam, Crestview and Des Moines Creek drainage basins of • the discharges of de -icing agents and other hazardous materials; increased industrial waste discharges; and intentional and accidental aviation and other fuel source spills; • increased stormwater runoff from new runways, taxiways, service roads and other newly paved areas; • construction activities, including, but not limited to, the introduction of 13.7 million yards of fill material; • present, and potentially increased deficiencies in the Port's industrial wastewater treatment system; and • the capacity of the Miller and Des Moines Creek Sewer Plants to handle increased stormwater runoff. Paralleling NEPA requirements, the Airport and Airway Improvement Act requires the Governor of Washington to certify in writing that there is reasonable assurance that the proposed expansion of SEA would be implemented so as to comply with all applicable water quality standards.3511 The EIS must demonstrate whether this certification is to be issued. 10. Social and Induced Socioeconomic Impacts The EIS must discuss and analyze the social and socioeconomic effects of the proposed expansion of SEA and of other reasonable alternatives. -' These effects are considerable, as the Port's proposal likely would require the acquisition of 230 residential 361/ 49 U.S.C. 4 2208(b)(7)(A). 36' Order 5050.4A 1 85c, d; WAC 197- 11- 440(6)(d)(iv), (e), - 444(2)(b), (c), -448. Page 102 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS properties and would threaten the social and economic stability of the cities surrounding the Airport. Additionally, an increase in the capacity at SEA would cause communities near the Airport to be exposed to greater numbers of overflights and potentially increased levels of noise exposure, negatively affecting the quality of life of residents. High noise exposures have been shown to depress residential property values nw As a result, thousands of individual homeowners would feel the direct monetary effect of the proposed Airport expansion project. This would cause harm to residential neighborhoods in Des Moines, Burien, Normandy Park, Tukwila, and other nearby communities by contributing to further industrialization and commercialization of properties in the Airport vicinity. Pressure would mount to convert residential properties to commercial uses, and single family residential properties to multiple dwellings, all of which would be contrary to the comprehensive plans adopted by the jurisdictions surrounding the Airport. Moreover, the loss of stable, residential areas and the addition of a sizable rental population would disrupt neighborhoods, affect school enrollment, threaten the tax base and undermine the social fabric of the communities surrounding SEA. The EIS must examine these and related social and economic effects of the proposed Airport expansion, including the impact on the tax bases of King County, the cities of Des Moines, Normandy Park, Burien, Federal Way, Tukwila and Kent, and school, fire, police and other special taxing districts, as well as the effects of increased surface traffic and secondary economic effects on the local business base. 11. Endangered and Threatened Species and Biotic Communities The Endangered Species Act mandates that each federal agency carefully examine the potential effects of projects on endangered and threatened species and critical habitat. The objective of the statute is to 2.121 See. e.o., Apogee Research, Inc., Negative Economic Effects of Proposed Expansion of Dallas- Fort Worth International Airport on Euless, Grapevine and Irving, Texas (Nov. 1990). r Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS insure that any action authorized, funded, carried out by [a federal] agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction of adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined ... to be critical 22i SEPA also requires the Port to examine the effects of its SEA expansion proposal on unique species and habitat for species of plants, fish or other wildlife.' Because of SEA's proximity to Puget Sound, the EIS should analyze whether Airport operations or the construction of an additional runway would affect any endangered or threatened species, including fish species (such as salmon) in Des Moines and Miller Creeks and peregrine falcons and bald eagles known to frequent the vicinity. Additionally, the effects of the proposed Airport expansion project on other wildlife or plant species must be evaluated. 12. Safety The Port's proposal to build an additional dependent runway in a land area smaller than most airports with a comparable number of operationsa' would result in an extremely large number of aircraft runway crossings at SEA. Aircraft runway crossings are inherently dangerous, because of the increased possibility of collisions. This especially is the case in bad weather conditions which occur at SEA with great frequency. The EIS must examine the increased risk of on- ground collisions which would be created by development of the Port's proposed third runway. The EIS also must discuss whether, and to what extent, aircraft would be required to wait on the ground while other planes cross in front of their paths to get from one runway to another. These and related al/ 16 U.S.C. 4 1536(a)(2). 366/ WAC 197- 11- 444(1)(d). 36a/ supra note 102 and accompanying text. Page 104 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS issues must be evaluated in relation to both the current configuration at SEA and in the context of proposed alternatives m' B. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources NEPA and SEPA require that irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources be addressed in the EIS before a proposed action may be implemented so that decision - makers are able to evaluate the risks of embarking on a path from which there may be no return and to assess alternatives to the proposed action in light of those risks.36e' The proposed third runway at SEA would be the most expensive single runway project in the United States. Table 5 demonstrates that, at a cost in excess of $250 million (and potentially greater than $500 million), the proposed runway would be considerably more expensive than any other runway project in the nation.368' 3671 § iv, SUDra. t/ 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(c)(v); WAC 197 -11- 440(5)10- (vii). 360' It should be noted that most of the runways cited in the Table 5 would be longer than the runway proposed at SEA. In addition, most would allow parallel indeoendent operations, which a third runway at SEA would not permit. Consequently, most of the other runways would yield twice as much benefit in airport capacity than would be provided by the proposed runway for SEA. Page 105 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS TABLE 5 RUNWAY PROJECT COMF'ARISON • • . Airport .• • Projected *Uninfays Length and Type Operational ••••' Date • : Projected (in $ millions) SEATTLE 7,000' dependent 2005 300 • Atlanta 5,500' dependent 1996 130 Baltimore 7,800' independent 1996 48 Charlotte 10,000' independent 1997 40 Ft. Myers 10,000' independent 1999 139 Houston Int'I 9,000' independent 1999 44 Kansas City 9,500' independent 2005 Louisville 10,000' independent 1995 Memphis 8,500' independent 1995 Orlando 9,000' independent 1997 Pittsburgh 8,200' independent 1995 Raleigh-Durham 9,000' independent 1996 Salt Lake City 12,000 independent 1995 65 175 105 100 100 37 235 Spokane 8,800' independent 2000 Tulsa 9,600' independent Washington Dulles I 10,000' independent 1998 2000 11 100 60 SOURCE: U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Aviation Admin., DOT/FAA/ASC-93-1, 1993 Aviation System Capacity Ran, Table 2-5. Page 106 Airport Communities Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS However, the cost of the Port's proposal involves more than monetary resources. Implementation of the inadequate and expensive third- runway project at SEA may foreclose future opportunities to address the real long -term transportation needs of the Puget Sound region, and thereby may inflict permanent economic harm on the region and the state. There are finite financial and community resources -- and a scarcity of air space -- for undertaking significant investment in transportation capacity and enhancing trade opportunities. These resources should not be squandered on what the Port admits to be a short-term solution. The EIS must examine the implications of SEA expansion for the long - terra aviation needs of the region and consider the extent to which construction of the proposed third runway and the other actions proposed in the Port's Master Plan Update would constitute an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of environmental and economic resources. Airport Communiti =s Coalition EIS SCOPING COMMENTS VI. CONCLU The ACC prosperity for t region's air tran environment. significant delet plan for SEA. terms of mone borne by its Air of such a mass! L L L A proper) to make rationa the Puget Sou commit the fin considerable sh needs that wo economic devel the EIS would ION wholly supports efforts to provide an atmosphere that promotes economic e Puget Sound area. Further, the ACC recognizes that increasing the portation capacity is an essential step in creating this prosperous economic onetheless, the ACC believes that a properly prepared EIS will reveal rious environmental impacts associated with the Port's proposed expansion urther, the ACC believes that the costs of this proposed expansion -- in , time, environmental impacts and lost opportunities -- would be unfairly ort neighbors, who also would receive less than their share of the benefits e project. prepared EIS is essential to enable local, state and federal decision- makers and informed decisions regarding the aviation planning and development for d region. Ultimately, these decision- makers must determine whether to ncial and natural resources of the region to the Port's proposal despite its rt- comings, or to consider a more flexible, long -term solution to air capacity Id enable the Puget Sound region to compete successfully for future • pment. A failure to examine the proposed actions and their alternatives in iolate NEPA and SEPA. Pape .108': .', " :n'.ry K;c4=2,2 :..M';h0:00.:14022 l';'). r,??.txa' ',1,S:a,s:. ,,N34,,.w....w........... w•ew..m..,.w.xexwvs 0 COMMENTS BY THE AIRPORT COMMUNITIES COALITION CITY OF BURIEN, WASHINGTON CITY OF DES MOINES, WASHINGTON CITY OF NORMANDY PARK, WASHINGTON CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PORT OF SEATTLE /FAA EIS SCOPING I PURPOSE AND NEED The Statement of Need should be an objective description the reason the project (not necessarily the Federal or sponsoring agency action) is being pursued. The EIS must include alternative methods for satisfying the need, including any reasonable alternatives which are outside the jurisdiction of the federal or sponsoring agency. Any adequate discussion of alternatives must fully respond to the Statement of Need. (Alternatives analysis must include reasonable action to satisfy the need even if they are beyond the agency's jurisdiction.) ,Most importantly, the underlying need for a federal action must be examined without regard to the agencies policy.aims or statutory mission and especially without regard to the airport proprietors desires. Defining a need for a project is critical because the Statement of Need defines the scope of alternatives in an EIS. Conversely if the Statement of Need is drafted in a very narrow fashion the alternatives considered will be improperly and illegally narrowed in scope. Unfortunately, the FAA appears to make this serious error in its public notice 4910 -13. The third paragraph on page one of this notice states as follows: "Recent planning studies have indicated both an existing and long term need for additional airfield capacity at Sea -Tac Airport." However, the primary study prepared by the Puget Sound Regional Council, "The Flight Plan Project, Final Environmental Impact Statement" addresses air transportation needs based upon future regional air travel demand forecasts. In other words, the population and air travel demand forecasts are based upon projections for the entire Puget Sound area. This, and prior studies, indicates a need for future air capacity for the region. It is, thus, improper in the scoping notice to limit the needs assessment to additional air field capacity at Sea -Tac Airport alone. Acceptance of the statement in the scoping notice would improperly limit the range of alternatives to be considered to those on site or in the immediate vicinity of Sea -Tac Airport. The statement of need improperly presumes an answer. Not only does the scoping notice assume that the answer to regional air capacity is expansion at or near Sea -Tac; it improperly assumes that the answer is in expanded airfield capacity. This again presupposes an answer, and narrows the examination of non - airfield alternatives such as demand management and higher speed rail. This error and improper interpretation are also contained on page 4 of the agency scoping meeting outline. Item five states as follows: "A number of studies have been undertaken in the last few years concerning existing and long term aviation requirements for the Puget Sound region and the ability of the region to handle the projected demand." Yet the second bullet in item five goes on to state: "As aviation demand grows, delay and congestion at Sea -Tac will increase: ". Again it is illogical and improper to conclude that since regional demand will increase that delay and congestion at Sea -Tac will also increase. Other alternatives such as new or replacement airports. supplemental air fields. Page 2 Comments - Port of Seattle /FAA EIS Scoping demand management, high speed rail, relocating commuter flights to other air fields, and related measures could well negate the need for expanding Sea -Tac. Item 7 of the outline again improperly assumes a particular answer to a regional problem. By improperly stating the project need in its narrowest possible form the FAA and sponsoring agency will exclude reasonable alternatives, and will have predetermined a very narrow range of possible solutions. We must conclude that the scoping notice put forth by the FAA is improper and may be illegal and should be reissued with a broader statement of project need. Since the notice is improper, many responding agencies will not have the opportunity to fully bring forth their comments and concerns in the scoping process. For example an agency, jurisdiction, or a concerned citizen may well bring forth additional concerns and comments if that agency or person knew in advance that the EIS would address the needs of the entire Puget Sound region with a much broader range of alternative actions. The narrow definition of need in the scoping notice defeats the intent of the scoping process and federal law. II. ADDITIONAL DEFICIENCIES IN SCOPING NOTICE The summary page for public notice 4910 -13 states in part: "The northwest mountain region of the Federal Aviation Administration ( "FAA ") and the Port of Seattle ( "Port ") announce that the FAA and Port, acting as joint lead agencies, intend to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a proposal by the Port to develop a new parallel runway and other airport facility improvements to be examined in an update to the Seattle- Tacoma International Airport (Sea -Tac Airport) Master Plan." The scoping information contains reasonable information and notice regarding potential development of a new parallel runway at Sea -Tac. However, the reference to "other airport facility improvements" is improperly and unduly vague. There is no additional information contained in the scoping notice about any other specific facility or operational improvements. Those agencies and individuals reviewing the scoping notice and submitting comments have absolutely no idea what these improvements may be. It is thus impossible to include in any scoping comments concerns about possible impacts or mitigations regarding these unknown improvements. The scoping notice must include adequate explanation of other possible improvements so that the reviewing agencies and individuals have a reasonable opportunity to explain their concerns and convey to the FAA and the sponsoring agency items that need be examined in the EIS. For this and other reasons the scoping notice must be withdrawn and reissued with additional information on possible improvements. The only reference to other improvements contained in the scoping notice is contained on the first page of the notice and reads in part as follows: . . and improvements to the passenger terminal, ground access system, and other support facilities." Again, these descriptions are totally inadequate for scoping purposes. III. PROJECTED DEMAND The scoping notice indicates that past studies (eg. flight plan study) project up to 45 million annual passengers per year by the year 2020 with up to five hundred and twenty -four thousand aircraft operations. Once again these are generalized regional demand projections and have not been correlated to . specific demand, capacity and congestion at Sea -Tac. The proposed EIS must re- examine the whole issue of project demand for the region. The figures developed in the flight plan study were based upon population and employment Page 3 Comments - Port of Seattle /FAA EIS Scoping growth figures from 1988. The 1980s were a period of tremendous growth in the Puget Sound area and recent years have indicated a much more level growth pattern. These previous projections are at least six years old and are now seriously out of date. The information prepared in the flight plan study and EIS was not prepared in accordance with the substantive and procedural requirements of NEPA. New and updated population, employment and aviation demands need to be prepared based upon changed conditions and economic patterns since 1988. In addition, the analysis did not take into adequate account the demand that may be drawn off by alternative airports currently being used such as Portland and Vancouver, B.C., recent developments in higher speed rail corridors and transportation, increased demand management, and other technological factors. It is improper according to NEPA EIS procedures to simply adopt and assume these previous demand forecasts. Finally, the demand projections were based on non - constrained straight line projections. Factors such as airline delay, changes in airline scheduling and service, aircraft design /construction, and increasing surface transportation congestion, etc. all have important constraints upon passenger utilization. For these reasons, the EIS should initiate new and independent demand forecast studies. IV. ALTERNATIVES NEPA requires federal agencies to evaluate all reasonable alternatives and their environmental consequences in an EIS. NEPA mandates not only that the alternatives to the proposed action be examined thoroughly whenever an EIS is required but also that agencies "study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources ". There are numerous and reasonable important alternatives which the law requires to be considered in this particular EIS. These include the construction of a new carrier airport, different runway locations, different runway lengths and uses, expansion of taxi ways for commuter airlines, development of supplemental or reliever airports, and imposition of operational restrictions to limit growth of demand. The FAA cannot simply adopt the previous work completed in the flight plan project since it was not prepared under NEPA procedures. As indicated previously the demand projections are based upon entire Puget Sound forecasts. Thus the range of alternatives to be considered must include alternatives outside of the boundaries of Sea -Tac Airport, and within the entire Puget Sound basin. In examining all reasonable alternatives, detailed comparisons of environmental, social and economic impacts must be prepared. Previous "Flight Plan" analyses were cursory and only compared alternatives at a very general level. Specific environmental empirical data must be prepared on each alternative, including all the environmental and social categories required under NEPA. Once again, since the "Flight Plan Project" was not prepared according to NEPA procedures, the information and findings should not be adopted by reference or incorporation. V. OTHER RELATED ACTIONS The EIS should include a detailed review and analysis of all other related actions which may affect the projects or actions proposed in the EIS. For example: A. Washington State Air Transportation Commission: Page 4 Comments - Port of Seattle /FAA EIS Scoping In November of 1993, the Washington State Air Transportation Commission transmitted its findings to the Washington State Legislative Transportation Committee. The report and findings include both a majority and minority report. The recommendations contained in both the minority and majority reports would have significant impacts upon the future organization and delivery of air transportation within the State of Washington. Many of these recommendations are contained in pending legislation (House Bill 2621) which may be passed during this or during the next Legislative session. This legislation would impact the governance and revenue structure of major airports of statewide significance. The EIS should review and analyze any and all potential impacts upon the proposed actions and alternatives that may result from implementation of majority or minority report recommendations. B. Puget Sound Regional Council In April of 1993, the Puget Sound Regional Council passed Resolution No. A- 93 -03. Part of this resolution authorized a search for a major supplemental airport within the four- county area. The resolution also states that if a supplemental site is found and is feasible, and can eliminate the need for a third runway, that the third runway at Sea -Tac would not be authorized. It appears to be a waste of public FAA funds to finance an extensive and expensive site - specific EIS for a third runway at Sea -Tac, when such a facility may be negated through the Puget Sound Regional Council process. It would be fiscally prudent to wait until the Puget Sound Regional process is completed before proceeding with the more detailed third runway EIS. Resolution A -93 -03 also includes the following: b. After demand management and system management programs are pursued and achieved, or determined to be unfeasible based upon an independent evaluation; c. When noise reduction performance objectives are scheduled, pursued and achieved based upon independent evaluation, and based on measurement of real noise impacts. The FAA and Port EIS must include detailed empirical evidence that these requirements have been met before finalization of the EIS and adoption of the master plan. C. The Puget Sound Regional Council resolution also calls for reexamination of the four post plan. In addition to this PSRC reexamination, Congressman Kreidler is sponsoring a local review of four post plan impacts. The FAA and Port EIS in examining any expansions at Sea -Tac, as well as any other regional supplemental alternatives, must thoroughly examine the impacts upon regional air space and specifically the four post plan. Alternative airports, supplemental airports, or a third runway at Sea -Tac will all have differential impacts upon the four post plan and regional noise impacts. Alteration of the four post plan will significantly alter flight tracks throughout the Puget Sound area and result in significant noise changes in communities both near and far. A detailed analysis of these alternative flight tracks and noise impacts for all of the alternatives is required in the EIS. D. South Aviation Support Area (SASA) The Port of Seattle has recently acquired property for a proposed expansion and support activities south of the main airport. The relationship of SASA and all future planned airport activities needs to be examined in the EIS. VI. Cumulative Impacts Page 5 Comments - Port of Seattle /FAA EIS Scoping There are a number of significant private and public projects scheduled in and around Sea -Tac International Airport that will have cumulative effects upon the local and regional environment. The FAA and Port EIS on the airport master plan cannot ignore these projects and alternatives. The cumulative impacts of the proposed actions as well as these other projects needs to be examined in empirical detail. For example, the City of Sea -Tac has zoned a significant portion of its city adjacent to the airport as an "Aviation Business Community ". The high densities envisioned in this aviation business community and the planned federal detention facility will have significant cumulative impacts upon traffic congestion, air pollution, population and employment densities, social services, public services, etc. The airport master plan cannot project impacts in isolation of these major and significant density increases. Another major and related event is the designation of the City of Sea -Tac as a major urban center under the Growth Management Act. As a major urban center Sea -Tac again will experience significant increases in population, traffic densities, air pollution, etc. which are related to the airport master plan and proposed expansions. For example, these density - increases will significantly increase the number of people exposed to higher levels of noise. Another example will be difficulties in moving people in and around an already extremely congested surface transportation system near the airport. A corollary impact is increased air pollution from vehicles. The EIS must include detailed and empirical evaluations of the proposed Port master plan improvements in combination with these other public and private improvements. In addition, the Port cannot simply assume that planned transportation improvements will be built. The analysis must include impacts with and without such highly speculative projects such as the SR 509 /South Access improvements, high speed rail, commuter rail, and the "people mover" project. VII. CONCURRENCY, CONSISTENCY, AND GMA Under the State of Washington Growth Management Act, as well as sound comprehensive planning processes, local political jurisdictions must plan and develop in a consistent and concurrent manner. The communities surrounding or served by any special purpose district such as the airport must be able to support or withstand the results of the proposed development. The neighboring communities are still in the process of preparing comprehensive plans from which will result in capital facility plans and actual capital project. The plans must be consistent with each other. More correctly stated, special purpose district comprehensive plans and capital facilities proposals must be in conformity with local general purpose governments. Existing case law does require special districts such as the Port of Seattle to act in conformity with policy goals of the Growth Management Act and local comprehensive plans. This clearly is the intent as written in the April 24, 1990, message of Governor Booth Gardner on Substitute House Bill 2929, to the State of Washington House of Representatives. Given the significant impacts which may be associated with possible expansions of Sea -Tac and other related public and private improvements in the vicinity, it is imperative that the EIS indicate in detail how mitigations will be concurrent with impacts. For example, current traffic studies show that the surface streets in and around Sea -Tac Airport already operate at the worst possible service levels (F +). With significant increases in air traffic, ground transportation traffic, and related Sea -Tac growth, the area appears to be headed toward permanent grid lock. What mitigations are proposed, how will they be financed, and how will they be scheduled so that any expansions built by the Port of Seattle will be built concurrently with appropriate Page 6 Comments - Port of Seattle /FAA EIS Scoping transportation mitigations? This is just one example among many. Other examples include the cumulative impacts and mitigations required for surface water, industrial waste treatment, air pollution, noise impacts, etc. The details and financial feasibility of concurrent mitigations needs to be thoroughly examined in the EIS. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that comprehensive plans of local jurisdictions be consistent with: 1) the plans of neighboring and affected jurisdictions; 2) the county -wide planning policies; 3) multi- county planning policies; 4) GMA provisions; and 5) other internal plans and policies. As described by David Smith, Project Manager for the Master Plan, the document will be similar in scope and purpose as municipal comprehensive plans required by GMA. The EIS must contain detailed analysis of how the proposed master plan will be consistent or inconsistent with the plans of affected jurisdictions. Such analysis must include evaluation of measures that could reasonably increase consistency with other prepared plans. VIII. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS In past environmental reviews the FAA and Port of Seattle have not adequately addressed the economic and social impacts of the proposed projects. The EIS must include a detailed analysis of past, present, and future impacts upon real estate and taxation values in surrounding communities. It is clear that increased airplane noise has decreased property values. The impact on both the private citizens and all effected governmental agencies must be explicated in the EIS. This evaluation must include detailed examinations on the ability of nearby local governments to continue providing fire, police, recreation, social service, and other services. Adequate mitigation measures must also be included in the EIS to compensate local governments for past, current and future losses of revenues due to airport impacts. The EIS must also include a detailed examination of increased airport activities and noise on social and educational institutions. For example, thousands of pre - school, elementary, middle school, high school, and college students are educated within high noise impact areas. These impacts have been shown to be detrimental to education and learning. The EIS must include detailed empirical analysis of these impacts. The EIS must also include detailed analysis of the impacts of the proposed improvements and alternatives upon the health of residents and patients in and around the airport. The impacts upon hospitals and homes for the aging must be thoroughly examined in an empirical and quantifiable fashion and appropriate mitigation measures recommended. IX. PUBLIC INPUT AND INVOLVEMENT It is critical that the Port and FAA involve local citizens, governments, and environmental agencies in the environmental impact statement process. Unfortunately, public input is limited to the final few short weeks allowed for comment on the draft EIS. Given the significant magnitude of this EIS, its potential impacts, and possible mitigations, it is crucial that the sponsoring agency and the FAA involve affected agencies and communities throughout the EIS process. It is simply impossible to comment in a few short weeks on the volumes and volumes of highly technical material that will be put forth in the draft EIS. This does a great disservice to public involvement and to the intent of the draft EIS process. It is strongly recommended that the FAA allow community and /or agency review of the various technical sections of the EIS as it is being prepared. This will allow adequate time to point out deficiencies or errors in the information and permit the sponsoring agency and the FAA to adequately address those problems. f Comments - Port of Seattle /FAA EIS Scoping Page 7 We must also object to the lack of public involvement during the scoping process. It is apparent that the sponsoring agency and the FAA have closely constrained the scoping process as to allow no public testimony. The Wednesday evening workshop is not being held on the record, nor is the public allowed any opportunity to verbally comment. In addition, the agency scoping meeting is not being held on the record and no testimony is being accepted. While this may be within the legal bounds of the FAA, we know of no other scoping meetings where an official record of the proceedings was not maintained. With no public record or opportunity for public testimony, it is impossible to gauge whether the EIS will adequately respond to citizen concerns. SEPA allows for expanded scoping that may include use of open meetings, questionaires, and other means to obtain public comment. Certainly the magnitude of the proposal warrants additional efforts to reach and solicit input from all segments of the regional community. X. ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING Detailed comments from the Airport Communities Coalition cities on the detailed scope of environmental issues to be examined in the EIS will be presented with written comments by February 25th. L C L L U:;..' >lit.%a L.:s:.Car;Wila::trAVA USA X.11 ..+ 9 0 0 a w Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 1994 / Notices 645 Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the heading, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Issued in Minneapolis, Minnesota on December 10. 1993. Franklin D Benson. ..tanager, Minneapolis Airports District Office. FAA Great Lakes Region. (FR Doc. 94 -139 Filed 1 -4-94; 8:45 am) DILU40 CODE 4110 -13-M Determination of Significance and Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and To Conduct Scoping for Seattle- Tacoma international Airport, Seattle, WA AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: The Northwest Mountain Region of the Federal Aviation Administration ( "FAA ") and the Port of Seattle ( "Port ") announce that the FAA and the Port, acting as joint lead agencies, intend to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposal by the Port to develop a new parallel runway and other airport facility improvements to be examined in an update to the Seattle= Tacoma International Airport (Sea -Tac Airport) Master Plan. To ensure that all significant issues related to the proposed action are identified, scoping comments are requested. DATES AND ADDRESSES FOR COMMENTS: To facilitate the receipt of written comments, two scoping meetings will be conducted. The first meeting, in a workshop format, will be conducted for the- public on February 9, 1994. A meeting for Federal, state and local agencies will be conducted on February 10, 1994. Send comments to, or seek additional information from the responsible Federal official: Mr. Dennis Ossenkop, Airports Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., suite 540, Renton, Washington 98055 -4056. To be considered, written comments must be received on or before February 25, 1994. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Recent planning studies have indicated both an existing and long -term need for additional airfield capacity at Sea -Tac Airport. Under current demand levels, the Airport experiences reduced operating capability and delay during bad weather conditions due to the close - spacing of the existing parallel runways. During busy hours, arrival demand exceeds the bad weather arrival capacity and aircraft and passenger delays result. In addition to increasing the severity of delays caused by bad weather, continued growth in aircraft operational demand is projected to exceed Sea -Tac's annual airfield capacity within the next ten years. The objective of the Master Plan Update, and accompanying EIS, is to address the bad weather capacity problem and to meet long -term regional air travel needs spurred by a growing regional economy. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared for the Master Plan Update, which is expected to include numerous projects including, but not be limited to: A new parallel runway and improvements to the passenger terminal, ground access system, and other support facilities. The range of new parallel runway options that may be considered in the EIS are anticipated to be in the immediate vicinity of the existing airfield at Sea - Tac Airport. Based on the Master Plan Update, other airport developments that may be considered in the EIS would be located on or in the immediate vicinity of the existing Sea -Tac Airport property. Mitigation measures will be proposed, as necessary, for the significant adverse impacts created by development. Major actions or concepts to be discussed in the draft EIS include the no action alternative and other reasonable alternatives meeting the purpose and need. Such alternatives are expected to include several options related to runway lengths, separations and threshold stagger. The FAA and Port of Seattle have determined that the new parallel runway is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared. The FAA and Port of Seattle have identified the following key areas for discussion in the EIS including, but not limited to: Alternatives, noise and land use, social and socio-economic impacts, human health, water resources, biotic communities, construction, earth, transportation and air quality. Scoping is the initial step in the preparation of the EIS. The scoping process is "an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to the proposed action." Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. Comments and suggestions are invited from Federal, State and local agencies, and other interested parties and individuals to ensure that the full range of issues related to a Master Plan Update EIS are addressed and all significant issues identified. To facilitate the receipt of comments. two scoping meetings will be conducted. A public workshop will be conducted to receive written comments on February 9, 1994 from 4 p.m. until 8 p.m. at Tyee Senior High School, 4424 South 188th Street, City of SeaTac. The second meeting will be held on February 10, 1994 between 9:30 a.m. and 11 a.m. for Federal, state and local agencies in the Sea -Tac Auditorium, Mezzanine Level Main Terminal Building, Seattle- Tacoma International Airport. Issued in Renton, Washington on December 20, 1993. Edward G. Tatum, Manager. Airports Division, Federal Aviation Administration. Northwest Mountain Region, Renton, Washington. William E. Brougher, SEPA Responsible Official. Port of Seattle. IFR Doc. 94 -137 Filed 1 -4 -94; 8:45 am) en.U+O CODE N/a -,s-Y Availability of Draft Environmental impact Statement and 4(f) Statement for an Airport Surveillance Radar Model 9 Facility for Washington National Airport, Washington, DC and Conduct a Public Hearing AGENCY: Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. ACTION: Notice of availability of Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and 4(f) Statement, and conduct a public hearing. SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is issuing this notice to advise the public of the availabiTity of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), which assesses the potential effects of constructing and operating an Airport Surveillance Radar Model 9 (ASR -9) facility at either a site within Ward 8 of the District of Columbia or at Washington National Airport, Arlington County, Virginia. The DEIS has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The purpose of the proposed action is to improve existing radar coverage provided to air traffic control servicing Washington National Airport and the airspace over Washington, DC. a 6 8 5 a PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR REGIONAL PLANNING IN THE CENTRAL PUGET SOUND AREA MARCH 11, 1993 This agreement revised the "Interlocal Agreement for Regional Planning of the Central Puget Sound Area," dated September 30, 1991, . pursuant to Article X, Section B. • INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR REGIONAL PLANNING OF THE CENTRAL PUGET SOUND AREA This Agreement Is entered Into by and between the undersigned Counties, Cities and Towns, political subdivisions and municipal corporations of the State of Washington and federally recognized Indian tribes. This Agreement is made pursuant to provisions of the interlace! Cooperation Act of 1961, Chapter 39.34 R.C.W. and has been authorized by the legislative body of each Jurisdiction pursuant to formal action as designated on the signature page. 1. NAME AND PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement Is to establish the PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL. hereinafter called the "Regional Planning Agency: and the terms and conditions under which the parties shall participate In the • activities of the Regional Planning Agency. II. MISSION The mission of the Regional Planning Agency is to preserve and enhance the quality of life In the central Puget Sound area. In so doing, It shall prepare, adopt, and maintain goals, policy, and standards for regional transportation and regional growth management In the central Puget Sound area, In accordance with federal and state law and based on local comprehensive plans of Jurisdictions within the region. The agency shall ensure Implementation In the region of the provisions of state and federal law which pertain to regional transportation planning and regional growth management. 1I1. ESTABLISHMENT OF REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY; DURATION This Agreement shall become effective upon execution by sixty (60) percent of all of the units of general government in King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties, Including the counties, representing three - quarters (3 /4) of the population. This Agreement shall remain In force and effect perpetually or until term. erminated by member "'gentles which represent seventy-five (75) percent of the regional population. 1 IV. DEFINITIONS For the purpose of this Interlocal Agreement and all other agreements, contracts and documents executed, adopted or approved pursuant to this Agreement, the following terms shall have meaning prescribed to them within this section unless the context of their use dictates otherwise: (1) Member agency shall mean any public agency which is a party or becomes a party to this Interlocal Agreement and Is a county, chy, town or federally recognized Indian tribe. (2) Statutory member shall mean any public agency whose membership is required by a state or federal statute. (3) • Public agency shall mean any city, town, county, public utility district, port district, fire protection district, school district, air pollution control authority, federally recognized Indian tribe, or metropolitan municipal corporation of this State, any agency of the State government or of the.United States and any political subdivision of another state. (4) ,Board shall mean the Executive Board of the Puget Sound Regional Council. (5) State shall mean a state of the United States. (6) Region shall mean that territory physically lying within the boundaries of the counties of King, Pierce, Snohomish, Kltsap and any other member county. (7) Population shall mean that population of any general purpose local government that Is a member agency fast determined for each such member as certified by the State Office of Financial Management or Its succeeding office of the State of Washington at the time of the signing of this document and on the first day of May of each year thereafter, except that the population of member counties shall be that population determined In the same manner for the unincorporated area of such county; and further that the population of Indian tribes shall be the latest figures established and certified by the F ederal 9ureau of Indian Affairs. (8) Renlon�i population shall be determined by adding together the population of the member agencies. (9) ,LQcaI comprehensive glen: A generalized coordinated land use policy statement of the governing body or a county or city that Is adopted pursuant to state law, (10) ntywide compre ensiv , nolicv den: A policy -based document (which reflects city and county comprehensive plans), establishing countywide goals and objectives to guide the development of local comprehensive plans for cities, towns. and the unincorporated areas within a county. The plan addresses Issues of countywide significance. (11) Certification: A statement of verification that local or countywide plans and policies are consistent and coordinated with regional plans and policies coveringlssues of regionwtde significance. (12) Comex: A condition In which plans and policies affecting the area within the regional agency's jurisdiction are compatible and mutually reinforcing. Consistency is achieved when these plans, taken together, meet state requirements for consistency In local and regional plans. (13) Conflict resolution: A process initiated by the Regional Planning Agency upon review of local comprehensive plans or of countywide comprehensive policy plans, when the agency finds that such a plan appears inconsistent with the certifiable elements of the regional plan. In the process, parties agree to seek a mutually acceptable accommodation of their differences among themselves or, when required, wtth the assistance of an Independent Intervener or third party. The purpose of the process Is to achieve consistency and, where applicable, to assure certification of the plan. If the parties cannot accommodate their differences, the conflict will be resolved by the board of hearing examiners described in Section 7(5) hereof. (14) God; Statement of an aim or desired outcome of a plan or planning process. (15) Growth management: A system for guiding, directing, limiting, and encouraging growth so that the demands for housing, Infrastructure, and other growth support systems can be met. Growth management Includes but goes beyond concern for natural systems, embracing also social, economic. and legal Isaut7 *. At it* lidbt, a growth management eyotcm oan and will eoparato urban and rural area* in a way that protects open space, farmland. and natural areas in the rural countryside, and provides for land, dentition, and Infrastructure to sunnti r needed raalrtentlal, commercial. and Industrial fealties. (16) .Metropolitan Planning OrpanhatIon (MPO1: The agency designated by the United States Department of Transportation and the governor that Is responsible,In cooperation with the State, for ensuring that transportation planning Is conducted through a "continuous, cooperative, and comprehensive (3 -0) process.` The process is stipulated in federal law. (17) Minimum $tgpllIkrd: The quantitative or qualitative measure applied to an activity, task,or function to determine if the region Is achieving expectations for a planning objective. Higher standards may be set for the same objective In local plans. (18) Objective: Statement of a concrete result to be obtained from a plan. (tg) Poley/G I elan s: A statement establishing the framework within which actions to achieve objectives can be taken. A policy often specifies direction but is broad enough to allow alternatives 10 be evaluated. (20) Regional growth rfl .r gw11er1J grEtlegy: A planning document that establishes a vision and policy on regional aspects of growth issues, including transportation, land use, open space, housing, economic development, and environmental concerns. (21) Racti:nally significant transportation protects: As defined by state law. such projects exhibit one or more of the following characteristics: 1. The project crosses boundaries of member jurisdictions; 2. The project Is or will be used by a significant number of people who Itve or work outside the county In which the project is located; 3. Significant Impacts from the protect are expected to be felt In more than one county; 4. Potentially adverse impacts of the project can be better avoided or mitigated through adherence to reglonal policies; 5. Transportation needs addressed by the project have been identified by the regional transportation planning process and the remedy is deemed to have regional significance. (22) -...g r ••i; • n In • •r ";g • - - • • An agency authorized under state law to develop and adopt a regional transportation plan, and to certify that the transportation elements of local comprehensive plans conform to requirements of state law and are consistent with the regional transportation plan. In urbanized areas, the RTPO Is the same as the MPO, (23) Sen Hive areas: These include the following areas and ecosystems: wetlands, groundwater aquifers, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, ftoodplains, geologically hazardous areas. 4 (24) (25) (26) Settinq_cateaories of orlorhles: An annual or biennial evaluation by the regional agency of regionally significant transportation projects recommended for funding. Evaluation Is made on the basis of general criteria, to establish regional preference for federal and state funding and construction among the recommended projects. Urban owwth area: As defined In state Iaw,.areas within which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if It Is not urban in nature. Vision: Statement of a desired future. V. MEMBERSHIP AND REPRESENTATION A. M mt2ershlp. Membership In the Regional Planning Agency shall be available to all statutory members and to the County and all City governments in King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. Membership by county and city governments Is established by execution of this Agreement and payment of dues. 1. All federally recognized Indian Tribes within the jurisdiction area are eligible to petition for approval as members of the agency, with voting representation in the General Assembly. 2. Special purpose governments and other State government agencies are eligible to petition for approval as members of the organization, but without voting representation In the General Assembly. 0. General Assembly. 1. The General Assembly shall be composed of all elected officials representing the executive and legislative branches of cities, towns, and counties which are members of the agency, representatives of Tribal governments which are members, and representatives of statutory members. 2. The General Assembly shall make decisions when a quorum Is present, and on the basis of a weighted vote of the members, with the weight of each city and county Jurisdiction vote as follows: total votes of all city and county Jurisdictions within each county will be proportional to each county's share of the regional population. County government will be entitled to fifty (50) percent of their respective county's total vote. City and town votes will be based on their respective share of the total incorporated population of their county. Indian Tribe vote will be based on their respective share of the regions' population. The vote of statutory members shall be as prescribed In the applicable statute or as determined by the Executive Board where the applicable statute Is silent on the matter of voting. C. Executive Board. 1. The Executive Board shall be composed of statutory members and members of the General Assembly. representing the four counties and their cities, 2. The Executive Board shall make decisions when a quorum is present. Votes for member agency jurisdictions represented on the Board will bo proportional to the total population within tho regional agency's jurisdiction. Up to one vote in any such membership category may be split to achieve greater proportional representation. Votes for statutory members shall be as prescribed In the applicable statute or as determined by the Executive Board where the applicable statute Is silent. Weighted votes shall be distributed as defined in Section V.0.2. Weighted votes shall be used when requested by any member of the Executive Board and Representatives present shall cast the jurisdiction's total weighted votes. Initially. the Board membership and voting structures shall be established as follows: • King County: neap County: Pierce County: Snohomish County Member Jurisdiction Weighted Representatives Votes Votes County Largest City (Seattle) Other Cities/Towns County Cities/Towns County Largest City (Tacoma) Other Cities/Towns County Largest City (Everett) Other Cities/Towns Member Jurisdiction Totals 4 3 3 4 275 3 144 3 131 1/2 35 1/2 35 2 2 105 2 1-1/2 75 1 1/2 30 2 1 1 2 85 1 29 1 56 21 19. 1000 Statutory Memt2era: Port of Seattle 1 1 50 Port of Tacoma 1 1 30 Port of Everett 1 1 10 State Transportation Commission 1 1 30 State Department of Transportation 1 1 30 Statutory Member Totals 5 5 150 GRAND TOTALS 26 24 1150 3. The distribution of county and city representation on the Board between and within counties shalt be reconsidered every three years based on current population data provided by the State Office of Financial Management. 4. Member agency representatives on the Board shall be elected officials and shall be appointed by the local Jurisdictions which they represent on the Board. Alternate member agency representatives to the Board may be designated who are elected officials and are of the same number as the authorized Board membership for each jurisdiction or group of Jurisdictions. Appointment of statutory members and alternates shall be at the discretion of the appointing authority. 5. Members of the Board eligible to cast votes In the decision- making process of the Board shall be designated by the jurisdictions they represent at the beginning of each calendar year. VI. GENERAL ORGANIZATION A. The agency shall be organized Into a General Assembly, consisting of ail voting members of the organization, an Executive Board of representatives of the voting members, and advisory boards and task forces as established by the Board. B. The General Assembly shall meet annually and otherwise at the request of the Board to elect officers from tho Executive Board, and to review and ratify key decisions of the Board. such as the annual budget Of the agency and essential policy documents, including the regional transportation plan and regional growth management strategy and amendments to there. 7 C. The Executive Board shall carry out all delegated powers and managerial and administrative responsibilities between the meetings of the full Assembly. D. Key policy boards to advise the Executive Board on recommended changes In policy or new direction on regional transportation and regional growth management will be created by the Board. 1. As directed by state taw, the Board will establish a regional Transportation Policy Board to provide advice on regional aspects of transportation issues to the Executtve Board and participate In agency policy making. It will Include representatives of large and small employers In the region, the We$hington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), transit and port districts In the region, representatives of community and neighborhood organi2atlons and other Interest groups, and citizens at large, as well as representatives of cities, towns, and counties which are members of the organization and such statutory members as may be required from time to time. 2. A regional growth management board will be similarly constituted and provide policy advice on regional aspects of growth management issues. E. The Board shall establish such other standing committees or task forces as may be required to provide advice and recommendations to the Board. F. The Board shall hire an Executive Director who shall be subject to direction of the Board. The Executive Director shall hire necessary staff consistent with the agency's annual budget. The Board Is authorized to contract for professional services to meet other support needs that may arise and otherwise enter Into contracts and acquire, hold and dispose of personal and real property as necessary. A. VII. FUNCTIONS /AUTHORITY Transportation. In meeting its responsibilities for regional transportation planning, the Agency shall: 1. Produce a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). as prescribed by federal and state law and regulations and based on local comprehensive planning. The RTP will establish planning direction . for regionally significant transportation projects, as defined in state law and shall be consistent with the regional growth management strategy. 8 The RTP will cover major highways and roads, regional transportation connectors (bridges and tunnels), ferry systems. public transit systems, airports. seaports, and other regional transportation facilities. It will address transportation system demand management, levels of service, and capital Investments. The RTP will also include regional High - Capacity Transportation (HCT) plane, and Impacts of urban growth on effective HCT planning and development, as prescribed in state law. 2. Through the RTP, establish regional transportation policy and, in cooperation whh the state transportation department, set minimum standards for state government to integrate In Its transportation planning and for local governments to reflect and include in the preparation of transportation elements of local comprehensive plans. 3. Carry out MPO functions as prescribed for federally funded projects In the region. These functions Include preparation of an RTP, an annual work program, and a six -year capital plan (with an annual element). As an MPO, manage right -of -way preservation proposals for highway and high- capacity transportation development to assure conformance with the RTP and associated regional development strategies. 4. Carry out RTPO functions as prescribed by state law. These functions Include preparation of an ' RTP covering regionally significant transportation projects, as well as these other functions mandated by state law: a. Certify that transportation elements of local comprehensive plans are consistent with the . regional transportation plan, b. Certify that transportation elements of comprehensive plans adopted by counties, cities, and towns conform with comprehensive planning provisions of state law. c. Certify that all transportation projects within the region that have a significant Impact upon regional facilities or services are consistent with the RTP. d. In cooperation with the State Department of Transportation, identify and Jointly plan Improvements and strategies within those corridors which are Important to moving people and goods on a regional or statewide basis. 5. In the case of certification of transportation elements of all local comprehensive plans for consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the Board shall direct staff to review plans and recommend certification. If staff does not recommend certification because of inconsistencies with the RTP, the local government(s) involved shall be notified, and the affected party or parties may appeal the staff recommendation to the Board for resolution. Upon receipt of an appeal, the Board will direct that a board of hearing examiners be constituted from the membership of the Executive Board to resolve the conflict, establishing consistency with the RTP, and allowing for certification. 6. Determine categories for priorities for the region among recommended regionally significant transportation projects, and forward those priorities to the State Department of Transportation for review In the development of state transportation funding programs. 7. Review and comment in the NEPA /SEPA process on proposed actions with potential significant impact on the implementation of the RTP. B. Growth Manaaement. The agency shall maintain VISION 2020 as the adopted regional growth management strategy. The regional growth management strategy shall be based on and developed from local comprehensive planning and address only regional issues Including transportation, open space, air and water quality, economic development and regional facilities. C. Countywide Comprehensive Plans. One year after adoption of this Agreement, a process for the regional review of countywide plans (which reflect city and county comprehensive plans) for consistency with the adopted regional growth strategy and /or the regional transportation plan shall be considered by the governing Board of the new Regional Council. D. Reotonal Data Rase tevetooment. The agency shall provide for establishment and maintenance of a regional data base to: 1. Support development of the RTP and regional growth management strategy; 10 2. Forecast and monitor economic, demographic, and travel conditions in the region; 3. Develop the data base jointly with relevant state agencies for use in the region by local governments and the State of Washington. 4. Respond to data prepared by the State .Office of Financial Management. E. Technical Assistance. As requested, the agency shall provide technical assistance to local, state and federal governments through regional data collection and forecasting services, consistent whh the mission and functions of the agency. In addition, the agency may provide general planning assistance, consistent with the mission and functions of the agency, to small cities and towns which are members of the agency and which request help to complete planning work they are unable to staff or fund. F, Discussion Forum. The agency may provide a forum for discussion among local and state officials and other interested parties of common regional issues. VIII. RELATIONSHIP OF REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY TO LOCAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS A. PlanninQnreparation: In a collaborative process with citizens of the region, interested groups and organizations, and local, regional and state government, the regional agency prepares the RTP and a regional growth management strategy. After public review and adoption by the Regional Planning Agency, these documents establish a vision and goals for growth and mobility in the central Puget Sound region. The RTP and the regional growth management strategy are based on direction Of State law and based on and developed from local comprehensive plans. IX. FUNDING OF AGENCY ADMINISTRATION /OPERATIONS A late and l ecl -raLpunding. Appropriations from the State through WSDOT to the Regional Planning Agency are to be provided as defined and authorized in state law. The Board is authorized to seek additional state funding as may be necessary. The agency will receive federal assistance through Urban 11 Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airports Systems planning funds, and other appropriate federal sources. B. Local Funding. Dues of member agencies, statutory members and associate members shall be established by the Executive Board. All city and county members shall pay dues, 'as established by the Board, based proportionally on a formula to include their population and their assessed valuation. C. Other Funding. The agency Board may contract on a fee-for-service basis with non - member agencies which request special services and with member agencies which may seek additional services. D. The Board shall establish the annual budget and the amount of dues necessary to support the functions of the Regional Planning Agency. Dues will be paid on July 1 of each year. X. AMENDMENTS A. Amendments to this Agreement may be proposed by any city or.county and shall be considered by all members upon recommendation by the Board. The Agreement shall be amended by adoption of affirmative resolutions by all of the prior signators. B. in the event 60 percent of alt units of general government in King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties, Including the counties, representing at least seventyflve percent of the regional population become signators to a new agreement Involving substantially the same subject matter as this Agreement, this Agreement shall terminate. XI. MERGER. This Agreement merges and supersedes all prior discussions, representations and /or agreements between the parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement and constitutes the entire contract between the parties. XII. WITHDRAWALS; DISSOLUTION A Any member shall have the right to withdraw from this Interlocal Agreement by giving written notice, six months prior to the annual assessment, to the Executive Board. B. The members agree that withdrawal will not absolve them of responsibility for meeting financial and other obligations of annual contracts or agreements which exist between the State of Washington or the federal government and the Regional Planning Agency at the time of withdrawal. C. Upon termination of this Agreement any money or assets in possession of the Regional Planning Agency after payment of all liabilities, costs, expenses, charges validly incurred under thls agreement. shall be returned to all contributing governments In proportion to their assessment determined at the time of termination. The debts, liabilities, and obligations of the Regional Planning Agency shall not constitute a debt, liability or obligation of any member agency. XIII. SEVERABILITY If any of the provisions of this Agreement are held lllegat, invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain In full force and effect. XIV. STATE RELATIONSHIP A copy of this Agreement shall be flied with the State Department of Community Development. __ Agreement has been executed by each party on the date set forth below: 'Attest "t e .1.-AF Title: Date: .e - V-- 9 3 Ap royed as to Form Deputy Prosecutor or City Attome ... W 8 u Puger Sound Regional Council PSRC RESOLUTION A -93 -03 A RESOLUTION of the General Assembly of the Puget Sound Regional Council Amending the 1988 Interim Regional Airport System Plan (RASP) for Long -Term Commercial Air Transportation Capacity Needs of the Region WHEREAS, the Puget Sound Regional Council, designated under federal and state laws as the Metropolitan Planning Organization and Regional Transportation Planning Organization for the central Puget Sound region. is responsible for adopting and maintaining regional growth management and transportation strategies for the region; and WHEREAS, the Regional Council has adopted VISION 2020: Growth and Transportation Strateav for the Central Puget Sound Region to guide growth management and transportation decisions and actions in King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish counties; and WHEREAS, VISION 2020 seeks to assure that the people of this region continue to enjoy an outstanding and improving quality of Life that includes a vibrant economy, a healthy environment, and livable communities connected by a multimodal, transit - oriented transportation system that emphasizes accessibility and enables the efficient movement of people, goods and freight; and WHEREAS. with respect to assessments of commercial air transportation needs, the Regional Council acknowledges long term forecasting uncertainties, and the reduction on a day - to -day basis of current airport capacity at Sea -Tac Airport during bad weather conditions; and WHEREAS. VISION 2020, as the Regional Transportation PIan for the region. includes the 1988 interim Regional Airport System Plan with language that called upon the region to "proceed expeditiously with the detailed evaluation and selection of a preferred regional air carrier system alternative," and which now needs to be amended to reflect the Regional Council's recent planning and deliberations regarding the long -term commercial air transportation capacity needs of the region; and WHEREAS. jurisdictions in the region agree to site regional transportation facilities in a manner that reduces adverse societal, environmental and economic impacts; seeks equity and balance in siting and improving the region's transportation system: and addresses regional growth planning objectives; and WHEREAS. the Regional Council. through the Flight PIan Project. has sought to address policy, environmental. and procedural concerns through a variety of products and processes. including the following: .:` ifS'ieue So'.. • 3. a iii::: .!.:14 • .i.e :i��•�. ! ,X u7.22! (a) The Regional Council, acting jointly with the Port of Seattle. completed a non - project Final Environmental Impact Statement evaluating various system alternatives for meeting projected demands and their noise and other environmental impacts. and (b) The Regional Council conducted a series of workshops, decision meetings, open houses, and a public hearing, to listen to the concerns and suggestions of community groups, individuals and interests that could be affected by a regional commercial air transportation capacity decision; and WHEREAS. as a part of this effort, the Regional Council finds that commercial air transportation is important to the region's economy, and that additional commercial air transportation capacity needs to be identified and preserved. and implemented when needed at some point in the future; and WHEREAS, the Regional Council finds that there is no perfect air transportation capacity solution. but that whatever solution is adopted must be part of an integrated transportation system that includes air and marine transportation as well as roadways and rail, that demand management and system management should be utilized to make the most efficient use of the existing system. and that any solution must not result in a decrease in safety and must address noise; and WHEREAS, the Regional Council further finds that the adopted solution should be flexible, must be consistent with the growth management planning that is occurring in the region, and should be financially feasible; and WHEREAS, the Regional Council Transportation Policy Board and Executive Board have developed and refined this recommendation to the Regional Council General Assembly; and WHEREAS, this amendment to the interim Regional Airport System Plan is consistent with the VISION 2020 Final Environmental Impact Statement: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Regional Council Executive Board recommends that the General Assembly adopt the following elements of a Regional Airport System Plan amendment: That the region should pursue vigorously, as the preferred alternative, a major supplemental airport and a third runway at Sea -Tac. 1. The major supplemental airport should be located in the four - county area within a reasonable travel time from significant markets in the region. 2. The third runway shall be authorized by April 1, 1996: a. Unless shown through an environmental assessment. which will include financial and market ' feasibility studies. that a supplemental site is feasible and can eliminate the need for the third runway; and b. After demand management and system management programs are pursued and achieved, or determined to be infeasible, based on independent evaluation; and c. When noise reduction performance objectives are scheduled. pursued and achieved based on independent evaluation. and based on measurement of real noise impacts. 3. The Regional Council requests consideration by the Federal Aviation Administration of modifying the Four -Post Plan to reduce noise impacts. and the related impacts on regional military air traffic. 4. Evaluation of the major supplemental airport shall be accomplished in cooperation with the state of Washington. 5. Proceed immediately to conduct site - specific studies. including an environmental impact statement, on a Sea -Tac third runway; 6. Eliminate small supplemental airports. including Paine Field. as a preferred alternative. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board is directed to: 1. Take all necessary steps to assure efficient. effective and economical implementation of this resolution. 2. Negotiate with the Port of Seattle. the Washington State . Department of Transportation • and other responsible agencies, as necessary, to assure the implementation of this resolution. 3. Assure that implementation of this resolution is at all times in compliance with the requirements of all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. 4. Report to the General Assembly on the results of its actions at the next regularly scheduled Assembly meeting or at such special meeting of the Assembly as the Board may call. ADOPTED by the General Assembly this 29th day of April. 1993. Bill Brubaker, Councilmember Snohomish County President, Puget Sound Regional Council Attest: Mary McGQmber, Executive Director 0 a ; • • • • • • REVIEW OF COMMUNITY RESPONSES TO CHANGES IN NOISE EXPOSURE Prepared for Cutler & Stanfield by Andrew S. Harris HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. 429 Marrett Road Lexington, MA 02173 November 1990 Review of Community Responses to Changes in Noise Exposure - Page 2 1. INTRODUCTION Community reaction to changes in noise exposure often cannot be anticipated by using "standard" noise and land use compatibility guidelines. Such guidelines generally identify levels of noise exposure below an L,, of 65 dB as compatible with residential land use. At more and more airports and military air facilities, such hard and fast guidelines give no warning of the negative community reactions that can result after changes occur that increase noise exposure at levels much below and Li, of 65 dB. HMMH has been involved in studies at airports where low levels of noise exposure have produced various degrees of community disapproval. This memorandum uses six of these studies to identify factors that help describe the noise exposure situation and the resultant community reactions and that can provide guidance in anticipating and coping with these community reactions. 1.1 Objective Specifically, the following sections give guidance on identifying when significant community reactions may occur, and an approach to use once community reaction has identified a noise problem. The objective of this discussion is not to examine or alter present concepts of noise and land use compatibility, but rather to focus on conditions that give rise to negative community reactions to a change, how to anticipate these reactions and how to proceed so that such reactions are minimized. Current noise and land use compatibility guidelines, such as those promulgated by the FAA, HUD, DOD, and other federal, state and local agencies have their own justifications based on feasibility considerations as well as on information relating human response to noise dose. The concepts presented here do not directly address these derived relationships between noise and land use. Rather, the approaches developed here have as a sole purpose the anticipation of and response to community reactions to changes in noise environment. This objective is pragmatic: if an airport does X, how will surrounding communities respond and what can be done in designing and implementing X to minimize adverse community response? Review of Community Responses to Changes in Noise Exposure - Page 3 1.2 Method Six studies in which HMMH has participated have been reviewed as a basis for developing the approaches described here. Each study, described in the appendix supplement, was examined for: causal events that gave rise to a negative community reaction, a description of the specific community reactions, noise levels that quantify non - aircraft noise, aircraft noise before the change, and aircraft noise after the change, normalizing factors, or non - quantifiable specific aspects of the study that may relate to how a community reacted to the change in noise. The six studies examined were: 1. The Expanded East Coast Plan (EECP) - a major change in the airspace use over the eastern U.S., 2. Naval Air Station Whidbey Island (NASWI) - an attack aircraft training facility where a significant increase in operations occurred over a two year period, 3. Baltimore / Washington International Airport (BWI) - a major commercial air carrier hub undergoing significant changes starting in 1981, 4. Portland, ME International Jetport (Portland) - a small air carrier airport that experienced a sudden increase in operations, 5. Danbury Municipal Airport, Connecticut (DXR) - a small general aviation airport with some community opposition to low noise level training flights, 6. Bridgeport / Sikorsky Memorial Airport, Connecticut (BDR) - a modest size general aviation airport, but with strong community reaction to nighttime business jet departures. These six studies encompass a wide range of aircraft types and operations, noise levels, and community reactions. They are discussed in detail in the appendix, but are Review of Community Responses to Changes in Noise Exposure - Page 4 identified throughout the following discussions where each contributed to development of the methods and ideas. 2. ANTICIPATING COMMUNITY REACTIONS Ideally, when an action is contemplated, before implementation, it should be examined to determine how communities are likely to respond to the action. Though the environmental analysis process is intended to provide the information needed for such an examination, often the environmental process is not required, as in five of the six example studies, or the "standard" method based on changes within an Ldfl of 65 dB does not anticipate the community reaction that then occurs, as in the case of the EECP. This section presents methods that should more reliably identify locations where adverse community response may occur. Examination of the six studies suggests that predicting community response has both quantifiable and non - quantifiable aspects. Changes in noise exposure, in terms of Day Night Sound Level, L„,„ seem to correlate with community response, but in each case, there are other non - quantifiable factors that may have affected the extent and intensity of the response. This section therefore discusses in two parts an approach recommended for anticipating community reactions. The first part describes quantitative analyses that should identify areas that are likely to produce negative reactions. The second part presents some of the factors found in the studies that may affect how negative and how widespread the reaction may be. 2.1 Quantitative Method The first four of the studies all involved quantifiable changes in noise exposure levels, and in general, the greater the change in noise level, and the more people affected by the change, the more widespread and active the community response. The numbering of 1 through 6 of these studies corresponds roughly to their relative rank order in terms of community response, with 1., EECP, having the most widespread negative reactions and some of the largest and geographically most widespread changes in noise exposure level (up to 7 dB increase in L,,). NASWI had the next greatest changes (up to 5 or 6 dB increases in L„) but over a less extensive geographic and less densely populated area. Both BWI and Portland had increases of less than 5 dB, but BWI's affected more people and covered a greater geographic area. These observations strongly suggest a quantitative approach to identifying potential negative community reactions. The recommended approach has four basic steps: Review of Community Responses to Changes in Noise Exposure - Page 5 1. Com . ute aircraft • roduced annual avera : e L. contours for both current (or no- build) conditions and for conditions that include the proposed change. This step is identical to standard environmental analysis procedures. Unlike standard procedures, however, this computation or modelling of noise exposure should extend out to distances where aircraft produced noise is approximately equal to non - aircraft noise. For most airports, this condition would mean modelling aircraft operations accurately to the 55 dB contour of L,,, since suburban areas typically have non - aircraft noise exposure levels of with an Ld, of 55 to 60 dB, as around BWI for example. Experiences with NASWI and EECP showed that communities can be sensitive to changes in levels of aircraft produced noise that are as low as non - aircraft levels. In these studies, aircraft noise levels after the changes were in the upper 40's (Ld. in dB) and elicited strong negative community reactions in areas with similar levels of non - aircraft noise. Such results are consistent with previously published data that show community response to intruding noise is conditioned by the level of noise that existed prior to the intrusion.'-' It is worth noting also, that even for aircraft produced Ld,, values of 45 or 50 dB, the noise produced by single aircraft overflights is likely to be easily heard. As a rough rule of thumb, maximum levels produced by aircraft overflights can be estimated by adding 20 to 30 to the annual average value of Ldn. Thus, aircraft maximums could be 65 dBA to 75 dBA where the Ld, is 45 dB, and these levels of intruding noise will most definitely be noticed in areas with low to moderate values of Ldn (45 dB to 60 dB) non - aircraft noise environments and will produce speech interference for conversations outdoors. 2. Compute differences between the current and the expected noise exposure that will result once the change is implemented. Where levels increase by 2 dB or more, adverse community reaction is possible. Increases of 1 to 2 dB occurred for BWI, but response was probably conditioned by earlier changes, some of which may have produced increases of more than 5 dB. From examination of the six studies, it seems unlikely that much significant adverse community response would occur for increases of 2 dB or less if there are no other "normalizing factors" 1/ Bolt, R.H., Rosenblith, W.A., Stevens, K.N., "A Communities Reaction to Noise: Can It Be Forecast ? ", Noise Control, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 63 -71, January, 1955. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Community Noise, NTID300.3, p. 50 ff, December, 1971. Review of Community Responses to Changes in Noise Exposure - Page 6 present, as discussed below under Non - Quantifiable Considerations. Contours of differences, though sometimes counter - intuitive in appearance, are extremely helpful in visualizing where the most significant changes will occur and will simplify the next step of developing detailed noise and population information at selected specific points throughout the community. 3. Determine populations affected for areas where changes of 2 dB or more occur. Though insufficient population data were available in the six studies, these studies suggested a relationship between population affected and community response. On the one hand the EECP changed levels over large portions of New Jersey, and produced vigorous negative community reactions. Portland affected a small area and produced moderate community reactions. This concept of response to noise being dependent upon how many people are exposed is traditional. The now classic work by Schultz' that looked at annoyance response to noise, used as its primary metric, percent of the population that reported being highly annoyed. Counting populations within various levels of exposure is also often a part of the standard approach to environmental analyses of noise. It is appropriate to continue this approach, but apply it to populations exposed to various changes in noise level. However, a significant change in this process is recommended: counts should not be summed by changes in level. Most approaches to counting enumerate how many people live within some range of noise exposure. These approaches lose a most important part of the information - specifically who is affected - while also being time consuming to calculate. The method proposed here requires that detailed analysis of noise levels, noise level changes and people affected be done on a point by point basis. Using the contour plots of differences produced in the preceding step, specific points can be identified for each community in the study area that will experience significant increases in exposure. These points should be chosen to represent specific political entities or neighborhoods, and should be located so as to have aircraft produced noise exposure typical of the entity. Each point can have associated with it a population or dwelling unit count, non - aircraft noise levels, (which can be measured at the point), before and after aircraft produced noise exposure, and aircraft single event noise levels for both the current or before condition and for the condition after the proposed change is implemented. ' Schultz, T.J., "Synthesis of social surveys on noise annoyance ", J. Acous. Soc. Am., vol. 64, No. 2, pp. 377 -405, August, 1978. Review of Community Responses to Changes in Noise Exposure - Page 7 By examining noise and population effects on a detailed point basis, not only is the analysis easier, but community groups can identify how the change will affect them. Results can also be tabulated for reference, and the process of examining problem areas and studying the effects of mitigation will be easier and more meaningful to the communities concerned. 4. Examine alternative implementation strategies. Having identified in the previous steps the areas most likely to be adversely affected, alternatives may be quantified to determine whether the numbers of people exposed to significant changes can be reduced. Changes in runway use, air space use, and aircraft altitude and power profiles are generally the types of modifications that can produce some change in the patterns of exposure. It should be noted that examination of the implementation strategy should include not only the quantifiable type measures suggested above, but also non - quantifiable public information considerations. Experiences in the six studies examined suggest that, in the long run, the approach that minimizes public opposition and adverse community reaction is full disclosure of the proposed change and of all related noise information and analyses. For the EECP, most people had no warning of the impending change, and its occurrence over night must certainly have heightened the dismay of the citizenry. The ensuing congressional concern and studies conducted by the GAO and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey led to some changes in the air space use and reduced the concern expressed by some of the citizens. With BWI and Portland, early publicity focused on the new expanded service but did not address possible noise effects. The publicity heightened the public concern that the noise would get worse and many feared that a trend toward increased noise had begun. Citizen concern in both cases led to Part 150 studies and development of noise abatement measures. These studies and measures clearly reduced the concern of some residents and did, in fact, reduce noise exposure for some areas. Additionally, it was clear that both studies played an important role in educating the public to the imperatives of and limitations inherent in running an airport. These experiences suggest that community response can ultimately force a full analysis of noise issues, and that airports should consider involving the public into the implementation process at the outset. An open public process brings some portion of the citizenry to understand the airport perspective and should lessen the extent of adverse community response. Review of Community Responses to Changes in Noise Exposure - Page 8 This quantitatively based method should make the realities and probable effects obvious to all concerned, but it should be noted that it will not automatically determine the "best" alternative. That determination is always one based on feasibility and political realities. 2.2 Non - Quantifiable Considerations In addition to changes in noise levels and populations affected, the studies examined suggest several non - quantifiable factors that may alter community reaction. Though these factors generally cannot be incorporated in any specific fashion, they should be kept in mind when considering the likely effects of proposed changes in noise exposure. Accumulation of Changes For both NASWI and BWI, a sequence of changes contributed to the extent and intensity of adverse community reaction. In the space of a few years the occurrence of several events, all of which implied increasing operations and increasing noise, led many residents to conclude that the noise was getting worse. Airports contemplating several changes should consider how these are timed, and how the public is involved in the process. Nature of Proposed Change Some types of potentially disruptive changes will not be identified by the quantitative approach outlined above. Some of these types of changes may be characterized by the following qualities: 1. Infrequent and loud - The occasional nighttime jet departure at BDR is an example. The event happens infrequently, but when it does it is so disruptive to so many people, that the community response far exceeds anything expected based on most quantitative analyses. The noise level of the single event is the only quantification needed when combined with simple common sense: will it awaken or disrupt lots of people. Engine runups and some construction activities also have this quality as do infrequently used approaches, departures and runways. The questions that need to be answered for this type of event are: Is noise reduction possible? Is the time of occurrence flexible? What are the costs of control? Are alternatives available? Does it have to occur at all? Review of Community Responses to Changes in Noise Exposure - Page 9 2. Seasonal or Occasional - Summertime or weekend daily operations may considerably exceed annual average daily operations. Military flight operations often have this quality as do operations at general aviation airports such as DXR where during good weather weekends, private pilots take to the air in droves. For these situations, neither standard quantitative methods nor the above quantitative analysis using annual average day operations will predict the likely effects. Currently, the most often tried approach is to examine a "typical busy day" or daily operations during some specific period when the operations in question are expected to occur. Abatement concepts, such as changed runway use, altered altitudes, etc., cannot very well be considered unless the effects can be quantified. Using specially computed daily operations or examining single event noise contours are methods that can make this quality amenable to quantitative analysis. 3. Peaking, that is the change will occur regularly, possibly daily, but will happen over short time periods. Both BWI and Portland had an increase in operations, but the increase was not distributed evenly throughout the day or the night. Aircraft departures and arrivals tended to be concentrated into specific times of day - a characteristic of "hub" operations at BWI or of providing business travelers with early morning departure and late night returning arrival choices at Portland. Day Night Sound Level, Ldn, will not respond to this type of operation. Both the BWI and the Portland experiences suggest this quality can increase the adverse community reaction. Community Expectations This is a most difficult factor to identify, but its importance in determining community response is obvious. If residents generally expect their environment to include regular aircraft overflights, their reaction to an increase in operations will be different from residents who regard every overflight as an inappropriate intrusion. Such a distinction in community attitudes could be surmised for NASWI and the EECP as compared with BWI. Some areas around NASWI have the appearance of untouched wilderness, and the Location has become recognized as a desirable retirement spot. The EECP affected areas that had. never had easily noticeable or regular aircraft overflights, and many communities expressed strong disapproval to the sudden change. BWI, on the other hand, is adjacent to several densely populated suburban areas that have experienced aircraft overflights for years, and where non - aircraft background noise levels reflect a busy, dense suburban environment. 3. RESPONDING TO COMMUNITY REACTIONS Review of Community Responses to Changes in Noise Exposure - Page 10 For the six studies examined, all represented existing problems, characterized by various degrees of negative community reaction; in other words, the problems had not generally been foreseen. This section discusses approaches for responding once a noise related problem is identified by community reaction. 3.1 Restore Public Confidence Responding to a noise problem identified by community response is first and foremost a public interaction and public information process. These experiences have shown that eventually citizens acquire full information about the aircraft operations, the noise metrics, the limitations of safe and efficient air space operation, the feasibility of noise abatement, and generally all aspects of aircraft noise and airport operation. Of the cases examined, probably Portland best exemplified the immediate response to community concerns. This airport found a means, within a few months of the change, to begin the process of acquiring the necessary expertise to examine the problem and look for noise abatement methods. The ideal approach is to immediately agree a problem exists, and start the process of providing public information and seeking solutions. If the public sees a sympathetic response, and believes their concerns are heard and a good faith effort will be made to find solutions, the intensity of the community response is likely to be lessened. Describing fully a responsive public information process is beyond the scope of this memorandum, but depending upon the magnitude of the public response to the changed noise environment, a public process could include: 1. Public informational meetings used initially to elicit citizen concerns (blood letting), and later to report on progress in seeking solutions, 2. Regular newsletters describing progress, Review of Community Responses to Changes in Noise Exposure - Page 11 3. Formation of an advisory group made up of users, community and airport representatives, and FAA personnel. 3.2 Seek Solutions Once the public process is initiated, the quantitative method described above in section 2.1 can be used to investigate noise mitigation alternatives. Successful identification of mitigation possibilities requires active participation by all involved interests: airport, community, air traffic control, airlines and pilots, at a minimum. The problems of eliciting such participation are the problems inherent in any resolution of conflicting interests, but an advantage of resolving noise problems not found in many other conflicts is that quantitative methods are available to provide, an objective means of judging possible solutions. Review of Community Responses to Changes in Noise Exposure - Page 12 SUPPLEMENT Description of Six Aircraft Noise Studies The studies are reviewed for data in four different categories: Causal Events What specific events caused the community reaction? Or is the problem so long term that no specific event can now be identified? What noise events do community residents identify as objectionable? Did the event(s) result in high levels of noise exposure for some areas of the community as well as low levels for others? Community Reactions How could the community reaction be characterized? Did it include widespread complaints, formation of representative community groups with leaders and spokespeople? Was there widespread media coverage? Or was the reaction really the result of the actions of one or two activists, with little or no broad community participation. Were noise study meetings consistently attended by hundreds, dozens or only a few actively interested people? Normalizing Factors How could the communities affected be described? Urban, suburban - high, medium or low population density; rural or agricultural? Have they had prior exposure to the source of noise? How could their attitude toward the source of noise be described? Noise Levels What were the measured and computed levels of noise before and after the occurrence of the causal events? Expanded East Coast Plan Causal Events In February, 1987, the FAA implemented the Expanded East Coast Plan (EECP), ar} extensive revision to air traffic control routes affecting traffic from Boston to Miami and as far west as Chicago. The plan was designed to remedy a mounting nationwide problem of delays that was particularly serious in the New York/New Jersey region. Through alteration of routes, the plan appeared to substantially Review of Community Responses to Changes in Noise Exposure - Page 13 reduce delays; however communities in north, central and western New Jersey with little or no previous exposure to aircraft noise now experienced almost continuous overflights though at relatively high altitudes (4,000 to 10,000 feet above sea level) and low sound ' els. Community Reactions From February 1987 through June 1988 nearly 6000 individuals registered strenuous objections to the EECP. Congressional concern motivated a study by the General Accounting Office, and the New Jersey congressional delegation requested the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to conduct its own study. Noise Levels Table 1 summarizes some of the noise and complaint data for five of the New Jersey communities. Table 1. Complaints and Noise Data for Five New Jersey Communities Community Complaints as % of Population Annual Average Ld„ Before After Change in Ld„ Mean SEL Long Valley 6% 42 49 +7 72 Cranford 7% 52 57 +5 83 Denville 3% 45 49 +4 73 Mendham 2% 45 47 +2 75 Kearny 0.4% 65 65 0 81 These communities have small to moderate populations, (Long Valley, 1700; Cranford, 27,400; Denville, 14,000; Mendham, 4900; Kearny, 36,000) and, except for Kearny, low levels of noise both before and after the EECP was initiated. The before and after Lan values are based on measurements of aircraft noise made after the EECP had begun, adjusted for annual operations and for slant distance. The mean SEL values are directly from measurements made after EECP implementation. For this limited sample, the percentage of complainants correlates with the change in exposure. From the SEL values, it is clear that aircraft overflights can be easily Review of Community Responses to Changes in Noise Exposure - Page 14 heard outdoors, and could cause some speech disruption for outdoor communication. Normalizing Factors The density of the residential areas varied from moderate density (one -half acre lots) to scattered rural in nature to country estates. All areas had some previous exposure to aircraft noise, but generally to the extent that some overflights could be heard if one listened for them. A significant attribute of the EECP was that it literally happened overnight. The affected public had no warning of the change before it occurred. Naval Air Station Whidbey Island Causal Events 1. NAS Whidbey Island consists of two fields, Ault Field with two runways that is the home base, and Outlying Landing Field Coupeville, located about 10 miles away, which is a one runway practice field used for flying practice "patterns" only, with no aircraft ever stopping there. Between 1985 and 1987, the number of practice patterns flown at both fields essentially doubled, and the total number of other operations (basically takeoffs and landings and some types of practice approaches) at Ault Field increased by about 50 %. 2. Aircraft approaching runway 13 flew over the town of Anacortes as they turned toward the runway centerline on final. In the summer of 1988 this turn was moved north so that aircraft could avoid flying over the populated town of Anacortes and fly instead over the more sparsely populated Guemes Island. 3. In 1987 updated noise contours were released. These updated contours differed from previous contours, and some residents interpreted the changes to mean that down - zoning might follow. 4. The Navy presented plans in 1987 showing still further increases in levels of operations were anticipated. Review of Community Responses to Changes in Noise Exposure - Page 15 Community Response Community reaction in terms of complaints to the Air Station tracked the increase in operations from 1985 to 1988, increasing from about 45 complaints per month in 1985 when total annual operations numbered 115,000 to 95 per month in 1988 when annual operations were 180,000. Three community organizations, each representing a different community, were formed in 1987 and 1988 expressly for the purpose of articulating community concerns about the aircraft noise. Public pressures led the Navy in 1989 to fund an Environmental Impact Study of a proposed comprehensive program for the management of air operations. Noise Levels Increases in levels that resulted from the increased operations tempo were different for Ault Field and for Coupeville. Based on operations counts only, levels around Ault Field due to general operations would have increased about 1 1/2 dB, in terms of Lt,„ while levels due to practice patterns would have increase about 2 dB. On the other hand, since Coupeville is used for practice patterns only, and since this practice use increase about 120% (i.e. more than doubled) levels around Coupeville would have increased about 3 1/2 dB. Records indicate, however, that the increased operations tempo included an increased nighttime percentage of practice pattern operations. Thus, the Day Night Sound Level could have increased more than the above simple estimates. When this increased nighttime activity is included, areas affected by practice patterns around Ault Field and all areas around Coupeville may have experienced increases of 4 to 6 dB. In the two years since the "causal events" took place in 1988, approximately 2,900 complaints have been logged by air station staff. When these complaints are separated by geographic region, approximately two- thirds originate from areas exposed (in 1988) to aircraft produced annual Day Night Sound Levels exceeding 60 dB, while about one -third come from areas exposed to an Ldn less than 55 dB . Non - aircraft noise levels are unusually low since there is only one through highway on the island, and this road, except for short portions in Oak Harbor, is two lane. Measured non - aircraft values of Ld„ generally range between 45 dB and 55 dB. Review of Community Responses to Changes in Noise Exposure - Page 16 Normalizing Factors Whidbey and surrounding islands tend to be primarily rural in nature, with some scattered subdivision development, and large lot residential use. The area has a higher percentage of people over 65 years of age than average for Washington state, and is considered to be a desireable retirement area. Baltimore / Washington International Airport Causal Events 1. In 1981, two changes in departure procedures resulted in an immediate increase in complaints. First, aircraft were permitted to turn on course at pilot discretion after takeoff, rather than waiting to be turned by controllers. Second, aircraft departing on runway 15 that were headed west were required to first circle east and north around the airport, rather than turning west. 2. In 1982, deregulation led to at least five new airlines entering the BWI market. 3. Piedmont Airlines began using BWI as a hub for its operations in 1983. Over a period of one to two months, daily scheduled commercial jet activity increased from approximately 100 departures to 140 departures. Operating as a hub, these Piedmont operations tended to be grouped during two or more periods of the day with ten to twenty departures per hour for one or two hours in early morning ( about 7am), late morning, mid- to late afternoon and late evening (about lOpm). 4. In 1983 a new general aviation runway, 15L/33R was opened. 5. In 1985 a master plan that included an extended general aviation runway and a second major east /west runway was released. Community Reactions Prior to the airspace changes in 1981, complaint activity and community reaction were fairly subdued, with a half -dozen complaints per month. The airspace changes brought immediate reaction of 30 complaints the day the change occurred, then dropped back and steadied at about 15 or 20 per month for the next year or more. Complaints increased markedly from the 15 or 20 per month to 80 or 90 per month after the start of the Piedmont hub operation, and opening of the general aviation runway gave rise to the first truly antagonistic community information meeting. Review of Community Responses to Changes in Noise Exposure - Page 17 Though no new community organizations directed at airport noise concerns were formed, congressional representatives were told by constituents of community noise concerns and became actively involved in the issues of airport noise and air traffic growth. By the time of the master plan, community concerns had coalesced into well articulated opposition to airport growth, with several community residents acting as spokespeople. Noise Levels Non - aircraft noise levels, in terms of L„„, are generally in the upper 50's and low 60's, based on data collected by 14 permanent noise monitors and short term measurements at three locations. The Piedmont change alone, in terms of L,,,, would have produced an increase of 1 to 2 dB, but the changes in departure procedures may have increased levels by as much as 5 dB or more for some communities. Aircraft noise in residential areas varies from an Lb less than 60 dB to an L,, over 70 dB. At the time of the increase in complaints, about one -third of the complaints came from residential areas lying within the Li„ contour for 65 dB, while the remainder of the complaints were from areas with an Ld,, less than 65 dB. In general, most complainants seem to reside within areas that are exposed to an L,,, from aircraft of 60 dB and higher. Normalizing Factors Residential areas generally consist of neighborhoods that are fairly dense (half acre or less), with single family detached homes. There are several well traveled limited access highways and unlimited access boulevards in the vicinity. Non- aircraft noise levels are moderate (L1„ in high 50's and low 60's) as expected for busy suburban areas. Portland, Maine International Jetport Causal Events Portland Jetport is located within the city limits of Portland, Maine. Jet operations must either arrive or depart over densely populated residential portions of the city. Possibly because of its location within the city, occasional complaints occurred since time out of memory. In 1983, People Express entered the Portland market with 8 jet departures daily, and United added 2 departures, increasing daily departures from 8 to 18. Review of Community Responses to Changes in Noise Exposure - Page 18 Community Reactions Complaints increased noticeably to the point that airport noise became an issue worth reporting in local papers and a petition signed by some 115 citizens requested that noise abatement measures be investigated and implemented. Noise Levels Based on the increase in operations, noise exposure would have increased by about 3 dB. However, the new operations included four or five departures slightly before and slightly after 7am. Hence, after the increase in operations, there was likely a higher percentage of night time operations, suggesting an increase in levels of up to 5dB. For two areas of town that generated the most complaints, Table 2 summarizes aircraft and non - aircraft noise levels. Table 2. Noise Levels in Vicinity of Portland Jetport Normalizing Factors The communities had been previously exposed to commercial jet operations noise, at the rate of eight or nine aircraft per day. In general the residential areas are moderately dense, single family houses with light local traffic, but with heavier travelled city streets within a few blocks. Also, as mentioned above, some of the departure activity was grouped around 7am. One expressed attitude of some residents was that Portland was a special city that offered modern bigger city benefits without the bigger city problems; that a reasonable price to pay for this special nature was less convenience for business travel into and out of the region. Annual Average Estimated Community L,,, Produced by Change in non - aircraft Aircraft SEL Aircraft Lc,„ L„, Departure Arrival Western Low 60's +3 to +5 55 -60 95 -105 80 -90 Promenade Meeting House Low 60's +3 to +5 50 -55 90 -100 80 -90 Hill Normalizing Factors The communities had been previously exposed to commercial jet operations noise, at the rate of eight or nine aircraft per day. In general the residential areas are moderately dense, single family houses with light local traffic, but with heavier travelled city streets within a few blocks. Also, as mentioned above, some of the departure activity was grouped around 7am. One expressed attitude of some residents was that Portland was a special city that offered modern bigger city benefits without the bigger city problems; that a reasonable price to pay for this special nature was less convenience for business travel into and out of the region. Review of Community Responses to Changes in Noise Exposure - Page 19 Danbury Municipal Airport, Connecticut Causal Events This is a two runway municipal airport that has some 400 operations of general aviation aircraft during an average day, with less than one percent of these operations produced by corporate jets, the remainder caused by single and twin propeller aircraft operations. Though no specific causal events can be identified that raised public awareness, there has been a long term public concern about noise generated by aircraft operations significant enough to fund a Federal Aviation Administration Part 150 noise compatibility study. During this study, the primary source of concern was the almost continuous single engine aircraft activity that takes place on good weather weekends when there may be up to 1000 operations per day, a good number of these being practice patterns flown by the small propeller aircraft. Community Response Though no formal complaint logging procedure had been used, the Airport Administrator was long aware of public concern, and initiated the noise compatibility study in 1985 in response to community expressions of concern. Noise Levels No one lives where noise exposure produced by aircraft operations exceeds an annual average L„,,, of 60 dB. Most residents concerned about aircraft noise live where levels of aircraft produced Ld,, are less than 55 dB, but where the noise levels produced by a single overflight exceed 65 dBA maximum. Aircraft flying practice patterns, one of the community's major noise concerns, produce maximum noise levels of 65 dBA or higher in an area about one - quarter mile wide and the length of the downwind leg, about 3 1/2 miles. Non - aircraft Ld,s are estimated to be between 45 and 55 dB. Normalizing Factors The area is rural to suburban, with most residential areas affected by overflight noise being single family low density country -like or rural in nature. Review of Community Responses to Changes in Noise Exposure - Page 20 Bridgeport / Sikorsky Memorial Airport, Connecticut Bridgeport is very similar to Danbury in terms of noise concerns. It is a two runway general aviation airport with 400 to 500 operations on an average day. Unlike Danbury, about 5 percent of the operations are business jets, helicopters also use the airport, and population density is higher. Like Danbury, the primary noise problem was produced by small aircraft flying practice patterns in good weather. The larger number of jet operations meant that occasionally, late night or early morning jet departures would wake large numbers of residents. Noise levels were also low, except for the single aircraft overflight or occasional jet departure.