June 19, 2001August 2, 2026

EXH AR1255: FAA Letter to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on Third Runway — New Technologies, MSE Wall, and Section 106 Activities

Notes

FAA Northwest Mountain Region letter dated June 19, 2001, from FAA to Ms. Muffy Walker, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch Seattle District Office, following up on May 31, 2001 letter. Addresses three issues raised in April 30, 2001 Memorandum for the Record regarding the Port of Seattle third runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (STIA): (1) new technologies including pFAST, LDA approaches, GPS, TCAS, ADS-B, CDTI, AILS, PRM — concluding none provide equivalent poor-weather dual-arrival benefit to a third runway separated by 2,500 feet; (2) mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall impacts on Miller Creek, wind shear, and embankments, referencing Worcester Massachusetts airport; (3) Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act consultation with State Historic Preservation Officer, May 12, 2000 archaeological report. References 1996 Final EIS, 1997 Final Supplemental EIS, 2001 Airport Capacity Benchmark Report, and FAA memorandum dated March 29, 2001.

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