October 9, 2001August 2, 2026

EXH AR006555: Second Declaration of Paul S. Fendt — ACC v. Ecology and Port Of Seattle, PCHB No. 01-160

Notes

Second Declaration of Paul S. Fendt (Parametrix, Inc.) filed October 9, 2001 in PCHB Case No. 01-160, Airport Communities Coalition v. Department of Ecology and Port Of Seattle. Fendt addresses ACC claims regarding Port control over stormwater retrofit schedule at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (STIA) for the Master Plan Update (MPU). Covers Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) sections 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 6.2.2, 7.1.4, 7.1.5, and Table A-3; 100% peak flow control retrofit commitment; water quality BMPs; 80-acre non-retrofit area; King County review letter; §401 Certification conditions J.1 and J.1.c (August 10, 2001 and September 21, 2001 revised versions); NPDES; Low Flow Analysis; STIA Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan; and impracticability of retrofitting under construction constraints including new runway embankment.

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