November 3, 2001August 2, 2026

PCHB Doc 005845: Memorandum Supporting CASE’s Motion to Intervene in ACC v. Ecology and Port Of Seattle

Notes

Memorandum filed by Citizens Against Sea-Tac Expansion (CASE) supporting its motion to intervene in PCHB No. 01-160, Airport Communities Coalition v. Washington State Department of Ecology and Port Of Seattle. CASE seeks intervenor status under Civil Rule 24 and WAC 371-08-420(1) in the appeal of Amended Clean Water Act 401 Certification No. 1996-4-02325 (Amended-1) issued September 21, 2001 for Sea-Tac Airport Master Plan Update projects including the proposed third runway. Document argues CASE has standing due to members’ use of Miller Creek, Walker Creek, Des Moines Creek, and Gillian Creek; references NPDES permit appeal PCHB No. 01-090; cites Coastal Zone Management Act Section 307(c)(3) concurrence; Declaration of Brett Fish attached.

Sidebar On/Off

As the source for federal transportation grants, the Puget Sound Regional Council was charged with developing a system to meet the growing need for commercial aviation. When the search for a second airport failed, they authorized the Port of Seattle to build the Third Runway, with a mandate to develop a noise abatement and mitigation program. In their effort to stop the Third Runway, the ACC argued over every detail of the Port's efforts--including property buyouts and sound insulation. The dispute was meant to be settled by a three member Expert Arbitration Panel. This is their final report. It finds 2-1, that the Port's program was insufficient in several respects. Despite that, funding for the Third Runway was approved by the PSRC, and the 'Port Package' program, proceeded largely unchanged. Expert Arbitration Panel's final decision finding that the Port of Seattle had not shown sufficient reduction in real on-the-ground noise impacts to satisfy noise reduction conditions required for approval of a third runway at Sea-Tac International Airport. The majority decision concluded the Port's noise abatement programs were insufficient despite being impressive in scope.

continue...

V V

Notes

Message