May 23, 2000August 2, 2026

EXH AR018449: Sea-Tac Internal Meeting Notes — Wildlife Hazard Plan, Easements, Groundwater Model, Cumulative Impacts

Notes

Handwritten notes from a SeaTac internal meeting on 5-23-00 (AR 018449, Exhibit 180), attended by Jeannie, Ray H., Tom L., Joan M., John Glynn, Kevin P., and Paula Chlos. Topics include resolving conflicts between wildlife hazard plan and mitigation plan, sideboard definitions needed; need for ETA statement on conflict with circular and whether it meets circular requirements; definition of emergency; easements at Auburn and restrictive covenant language; groundwater model tweaking to account for 100% error in groundwater volumes, including SOU with drawing from highline aquifer and recharging in winter; 1994 as baseflow condition with no direct impacts noted; 509 temp access with Corps making first call; and public notice failure to address EOF and other projects with potentially cumulatively significant impacts.

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