October 8, 2001August 2, 2026

EXH AR006737: ACC Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Stay — Section 401 Certification No. 1996-4-02325

Notes

Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) reply memorandum filed before the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB), Case Nos. 01-133 and 01-160, in support of ACC’s motion for a stay of Washington Department of Ecology Section 401 Clean Water Act certification No. 1996-4-02325 (Amended-1) and CZMA concurrency statement issued August 10, 2001, reissued September 21, 2001, for Port Of Seattle. Argues de novo review standard under WAC 371-08-485, reasonable assurance of water quality standards compliance, WAC 371-08-415 prima facie stay standard, irreparable harm, water rights, BMPs, and cites internal DOE Senior Management Team notes by Ray Hellwig dated April 3, 2001, and AAG Joan Marchioro and AAG Ron Lavigne email dated April 30, 1999. References Martin Marietta Aluminum v. Woodward, Hillis v. Department of Ecology, Kaiser Aluminum v. Dept. of Ecology, and Dept. of Ecology v. PUD No. 1.

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