TagThird Runway(157)

On December 27, 2000, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a second revised public notice concerning the Section 404 application under the Federal Clean Water Act for the proposed Master Plan Update improvements at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. This document has been prepared to provide the regulatory agencies with responses to agency and public comments concerning this application from the Port of Seattle perspective. This document is organized as follows: I. Summary (Introduction and Summary of Changes in the Port's Application Since 1999) II. General Responses to Comments Ill. Response to Agency Letters • Response to Tom Luster's Memo to Julia Patterson • Response to Muckleshoot Tribe • Response to Airport Community Coalition communities and their Technical Consultants a. Helsell Fetterman h. Columbia Biological b. Stephen Hockaday i. Northwest Hydraulics c. GeoffGosling j. Norman Wildlife Consulting d. Thomas Lane Associates k. Paschal Osborn e. GeoSyntec I. Sheldon & Associates f. Azous Environmental m. Water Resource Consulting g. BioAnalysts n. Smith & Lowney IV. Responses to Citizens, Groups and Elected Officials - letters, emails, faxes, hearing cards and transcript V. Earlier Public Notice Comments and Responses (Prior to 1999 Public Notice) • Overview of how new material changes earlier responses • Earlier Public Comments and Responses Sections II through IV respond from the Port's perspective to comments received since the 1999 public notice. Section V contains the Port of Seattle's responses to all comments received prior to the 1999 notice. It is important to note that the responses to comments in…

Project # Ap':A Third Runway Construction Project Total Cost - $587.4 b611ion PFC Funds . 5104.3 Million CuGfic8tion . Disagree + b United disagrees with this proposed use ofPPCs because United bdiw© that the plan is inconsistent with the purposes of the legislation authOdag airportS to knpose PFCs. would faci]itat6 the Port’s improper diversion of federal air Uanspoaation aDdS to a local nruaicipaaty (revenue divenior!), and lacks the required detailed 6mncial plan. a liMb Despite many meetings with the airport, United has not been informed how, if built, this third runway will enhance the safety, security or up acity of the national air traruportldoa 9y8teal, reduce noise, or enhance competition mong air carriers as required to be eligible for PFC funding / (,t Spai£alty, United believes the Port can resolve its warm weather and Pacific Rirn limitadon8 by completing Project #AP+2. Moreover, the airport e$dmate that a third runway will provide $60 million ofopentional savings is not wppon8ble using standard bUSiD®S laladadon8. Indeed, United’s calCUIAtions suggest that a third runway will cause a cost increase on a net present value basis and that future passenger and operations growth are cweatly 8igni6antly below the level necessary to justify a new runway for the fore8ee£ble ARun. r..- q q : ( Ure Poa has also stated that the additional runway is necessary to elilniwte a swat minute avenge delay at the airport. The airlines do not dispute the amount of delay at the airport, but believe that allnost al:>ne of that delay…

Auburn City Council Minutes describing Port wetlands swap for Third Runway by Barbara Hinkle

=i-e-Tacoma International Airport (Sea.-Tac) Expansion Project Environmental mp,ICt Statement-- The Port of Seattle completed and issued its Final Supplemental ,nvironmental Impact Statement for the proposed Master Plan Update at Sea-Tac. followed by the Federal Aviation Administration's release of its Record of Decision and Air Conformity determination. The FM determined that the project will not be considered regionally sigIdficant with regard to air pollution emissions, and that it is consistent with the State Implementation Plan ,r dir quality. The state reaffirmed its certification of the Sea-Tac Airport third runway project is certification is conditioned to assure that the third runway will be constructed and operated in compliance with applicable air and water quality standards. The conditions of the ,rtification uld the status of the environmental permits to be issued by the Department of ,c.ojogy (Ecology) are explained in more detail below. Ecology is one of several agencies that reviewed both the environmental impact statement (EIS) and the supplemental EIS for the proposed airport expansion project. and is involved in issuing environmental permits and ,ertifications for the project , Stockpile of fill material '-- The Port has begun to stockpile fill needed to build the third runway. CWTently, the fill is coming from a permitted spd and gravel mine located in Dupont. The fill is shipped by barge up the Duwamish River and then trucked up SR509 to the airport. , Enforcement – Ecology recently penalized the Port for improperly controlled soil erosion runoff from an employee parking lot under construction north…