Notes

The Port of Seattle filed a reply memorandum in PCHB Case No. 01-160 supporting its motion for partial summary judgment on the SEPA issue (Issue No. 14). The Port argues that the Pollution Control Hearings Board lacks jurisdiction to hear administrative SEPA appeals of Port actions, and that the Port’s August 2001 decision that no additional supplemental EIS was required is a final administrative decision that cannot be collaterally challenged. The Port also contends that SEPA is a procedural statute requiring no particular substantive result, and that SEPA requirements were complied with as a matter of law.

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