Notes

Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) motion filed in PCHB No. 01-160 before the Environmental Pollution Control Hearings Board for the State of Washington, seeking to extend the discovery schedule against Port Of Seattle and Department of Ecology. ACC requests extension of Port Of Seattle witness deposition deadline from February 1, 2002 to February 25, 2002; final exhibit list filing from February 8, 2002 to March 1, 2002; and pre-filed direct testimony from February 15, 2002 to March 1, 2002. Motion cites scheduling conflicts, Christmas/New Year holidays, Port’s delay in granting site access under CR 34(a)(2) Request for Entry for inspection of Third Runway wetlands, soils, streams, and surface waters, and late production of Final Natural Resources Mitigation Plan (November 26, 2001) and Low Stream Flow Analysis and Summer Low Flow Offset Facility Proposal (December 12, 2001). Attorneys Michael P. Witek (Helsell Fetterman LLP) and Rachael Paschal Osborn.

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