Notes

ACC (Airport Communities Coalition, comprising Cities of Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, Normandy Park, Tukwila, and Highline School District) files memorandum before the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB), Case No. 01-133, seeking a stay of Department of Ecology Section 401 Certification No. 1996-4-02325, issued August 10, 2001, for Sea-Tac Third Runway and related projects. Motion argues likelihood of success on merits and irreparable harm; cites Thomas R. Luster Declaration (former DOE lead staff) that water quality standards will be violated. Project involves 20 million cubic yards of fill, obliteration of 20 acres of wetlands, impacts to Des Moines Creek, Miller Creek, Walker Creek, Gilliam Creek, Class AA waters, under RCW 43.21B.320 and WAC 371-08-415. Attorneys: Helsell Fetterman LLP (Kevin L. Stock, Peter J. Eglick, Michael P. Witek) and Rachael Paschal Osborn.

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