Notes

Prehearing brief filed by appellant Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) and intervenor-appellant Citizens Against Sea-Tac Expansion (CASE) in PCHB No. 01-160, appealing the Washington Department of Ecology’s August 10, 2001 Section 401 Clean Water Act certification for the Sea-Tac Airport Third Runway project. Documents the Port of Seattle’s proposal to fill a canyon with 20 million cubic yards of material, construct a 150-foot Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) wall (‘Great Wall of SeaTac’) on liquefaction-prone soils, impact 700+ acres, create 300+ acres of impervious surface, fill 50 wetlands, and obliterate 980 linear feet of fish-bearing Miller Creek. Addresses WAC 173-201A-030 Class AA water quality standards for Des Moines Creek, Miller Creek, and Walker Creek, and the ‘reasonable assurance’ standard for 401 certification. ACC comprises Cities of Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, Normandy Park, Tukwila, and the Highline School District.

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