Notes

Erratum filed by Port Of Seattle in PCHB case No. 01-160 (Airport Communities Coalition v. Department of Ecology and Port Of Seattle) correcting Item No. 136 in the witness and exhibit list. Corrects dates for Parametrix, Inc. draft memorandum to Port Of Seattle project files titled ‘Range-finding water-effect ratio results’ (authors L. Logan and D. Henderson) to reflect April 1999, February 1999, and April 2000. Submitted by Linda J. Stout (General Counsel, WSBA No. 9422), Traci M. Goodwin (Senior Port Counsel, WSBA No. 14974), Roger A. Pearce (WSBA No. 21113), Steven G. Jones (WSBA No. 19334) of Foster Pepper & Shefelman PLLC, and Jay J. Manning and Gillis E. Reavis (WSBA No. 21451) of Marten & Brown LLP. Filed with Pollution Control Hearings Board for the State of Washington, AR 003201.

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