Notes

Washington State Department of Ecology’s response to Citizens Against Sea-Tac Expansion (CASE) motion to intervene in PCHB No. 01-160, Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) v. State of Washington Department of Ecology and Port Of Seattle. Ecology concurs with Port Of Seattle’s requested limits on intervention and does not oppose CASE’s motion. Filed December 10, 2001; signed by Assistant Attorneys General Joan M. Marchioro, Thomas J. Young, and Jeff Kray under Attorney General Christine O. Gregoire. Certificate of Service also included, served via U.S. Mail and fax to Helsell Fetterman LLP attorneys Peter J. Eglick, Kevin L. Stock, and Michael P. Witek. AR 005830.

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