Notes

Memorandum dated October 30, 2001 from Michael Kenrick of Hart Crowser, Inc. to Jim Thomson of HNTB, CC Elizabeth Leavitt of Port Of Seattle, project number 4978-06. Addresses wetland hydrology impacts of Third Runway Embankment Fill construction at Sea-Tac Airport, covering depression wetlands, slope wetlands, and riparian wetlands. References Miller Creek and Walker Creek baseflow, hydrogeologic conditions, Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Master Plan Update (FAA/Port of Seattle 1996), Geotechnical Engineering Report 404 Permit Support (Hart Crowser 1999a), Sea-Tac Runway Fill Hydrologic Studies Report (Pacific Groundwater Group PGG 2000), Baseline Groundwater Study (AGI 1996), Hydrologic Modeling Study (Montgomery Water Group 1995), and Washington State Department of Ecology review. Discusses infiltration, runoff, evapotranspiration, perched water-bearing zones, shallow regional aquifer, and US Army Corps of Engineers permit context.

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