October 15, 2001August 2, 2026

PCHB 01-160: Order Granting Motion to Stay the Effectiveness of Section 401 Certification — ACC v. Ecology and Port Of Seattle

Notes

Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB) case 01-160, Order Granting Motion to Stay the Effectiveness of Section 401 Certification No. 1996-4-02325 (amended-1), issued by Washington State Department of Ecology to Port Of Seattle on September 21, 2001. ACC (Airport Communities Coalition) sought to stay the §401 Clean Water Act certification, a prerequisite to a §404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for filling wetlands as part of the Third Runway and other projects at Sea-Tac Airport. Board members Kaleen Cottingham and Robert V. Jensen heard oral argument October 15, 2001. Stay standard under RCW 43.21B.310, RCW 43.21B.320, and WAC 371-08-415 requires prima facie showing of likelihood of success on merits or irreparable harm; cites 33 U.S.C. 1341, 33 U.S.C. 1344, 33 CFR 320.4(d).

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