October 21, 2002August 2, 2026

EXH AR016419: Prefiled Direct Testimony of C. Linn Gould — ACC v. Ecology and Port Of Seattle, PCHB No. 01-160

Notes

Prefiled direct testimony of C. Linn Gould submitted by Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) in PCHB No. 01-160 before the Pollution Control Hearings Board for the State of Washington. Testimony addresses embankment design and fill criteria for Third Runway construction at Sea-Tac Airport, flow paths through embankment fill, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Biological Opinion, drainage layer cover, backcalculated fill criteria, background concentrations, practical quantitation limits, Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP), ecological criteria for the top 3 feet of embankment, development of fill criteria for the Section 401 Certification (August 10 and September 10, 2001), and response to testimony of Dr. Patrick Lucia. Respondents are State of Washington Department of Ecology and Port Of Seattle.

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