March 7, 2002August 2, 2026

EXH AR016335: Pre-Filed Direct Testimony of Paul S. Fendt, P.E. — PCHB 01-160, ACC and CASE v. Ecology and Port Of Seattle

Notes

Pre-filed direct testimony of Paul S. Fendt, P.E., submitted to the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB), case No. PCHB 01-160, Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) and Citizens Against Sea-Tac Expansion (CASE) v. Department of Ecology and Port Of Seattle. AR 016335. Testimony covers stormwater impacts from the MPU (Master Plan Update) improvements at Sea-Tac Airport, including the Port’s Stormwater Management Plan controls for peak flow, low flow, and water quality impacts; stormwater detention and treatment; Miller Creek, Walker Creek, Des Moines Creek, SDS3 vault; low flow modeling and mitigation; natural resource mitigation design; and reasonable assurance that water quality standards will be met. Filed March 7, 2002. Prepared by Foster Pepper & Shefelman PLLC.

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