Notes

Ecology’s response filed before the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB No. 01-160) opposing ACC’s motion in limine to exclude testimony of Dave Garland regarding the Port of Seattle’s December 2001 Low Flow Plan and groundwater modeling for embankment fill. Ecology argues ACC was aware of Garland’s role through interrogatory answers, his January 9, 2002 deposition, and depositions of Ann Kenny (February 20, 2002) and Kelly Whiting (February 28, 2002). Cites Goodman v. Boeing Co., 75 Wn. App. 60 (1994) and Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484 (1997) on standards for excluding testimony. Filed by Washington Attorney General, Ecology Division.

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