April 20, 1998August 2, 2026

EXH AR035981: Comment Binder B — Letters to the Corps and Ecology During Second Public Comment Period (April–April 1998)

Notes

Port of Seattle Comment Binder B for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Master Plan Update, containing letters submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during the second public comment period (April 9–20, 1998) and comments to Washington State Department of Ecology during the entire public comment period (December 19, 1997–April 29, 1998). Includes a letter dated April 8, 1998 from the FAA Northwest Mountain Region to Jonathan Freedman, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, regarding the Port of Seattle’s wetland mitigation program. The FAA letter references its July 3, 1997 Record of Decision, the 1996 Final EIS and 1997 Final Supplemental EIS, FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33 on Hazardous Wildlife Attractants, and mitigation at an Auburn wetland site. AR 035981 through AR 035983.

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