October 21, 2002August 2, 2026

EXH AR015729: Direct Testimony of Gordon White on Behalf of Ecology — PCHB No. 01-160 (ACC v. Ecology and Port Of Seattle)

Notes

Direct testimony of Gordon White, Program Manager for the Shorelands and Environmental Assistance (SEA) program at the Washington State Department of Ecology, submitted in PCHB No. 01-160 before the Pollution Control Hearings Board, State of Washington. Appellants are Airport Communities Coalition and Citizens Against Sea-Tac Expansion (CASE) versus respondents State of Washington Department of Ecology and Port Of Seattle. White describes his role overseeing implementation of the Shoreline Management Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Flood Plain Management, Clean Water Act § 401 Water Quality Certifications, Watershed Planning Act, wetlands management, and delegated authority under RCW 43.21C, RCW 90.58, RCW 36.70A, RCW 82.34. Document reference AR 015729–AR 015731.

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