March 9, 2001August 2, 2026

EXH AR029131: 401 Permit Decision-Making, Sea-Tac International Airport Third Runway — Final Draft Meeting Notes

Notes

Final draft meeting notes from March 9, 2001 (11:00–3:00) for the 401 Permit Decision-Making process for Sea-Tac International Airport Third Runway, prepared by Kate Snider of Floyd & Snider Inc. Attendees included Ray Hellwig, Kevin Fitzpatrick, and Ann Kenny (Dept. of Ecology), Elizabeth Leavitt (Port of Seattle), David Masters (King County), and Floyd & Snider staff. Topics covered: Stormwater Master Plan (SMP) compliance with 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual, King County Enclosure 2 checklist, Low Stream Flow Mitigation (ground water modeling, water rights, MTCA Agreed Order), Natural Resources Mitigation Plan (NRMP) review by Shannon & Wilson, 401/402 Major Modification schedule, and Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) Agreed Order. Administrative record numbers AR 029131, AR 029132, AR 029133.

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