February 8, 2002August 2, 2026

EXH AR003728: Stipulation and Agreed Order Modifying Due Dates for Joint Status Report — ACC v. Ecology and Port Of Seattle, PCHB No. 01-160

Notes

Stipulation and Agreed Order filed February 8, 2002, in Pollution Control Hearings Board case PCHB No. 01-160, involving Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) and Citizens Against Airport Expansion as appellants against State of Washington Department of Ecology and Port Of Seattle as respondents, concerning Clean Water Act Section 401 Certifications #1996-4-02325 and #1996-4-02325 (Amended-1). Parties including Helsell Fetterman LLP, Foster Pepper & Shefelman PLLC, Marten Brown Inc., Christine O. Gregoire (Attorney General), and Smith & Lowney PLLC stipulate to extend the Joint Status Report deadline and estimate of hearing time from February 8, 2002 to February 28, 2002, due to ongoing discovery extended per Board’s Discovery Order dated January 22, 2002. AR 003728–003730.

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