PCHB194005903

PCHBPollution Control Hearings Board of the State of Washington

Respondent Port of Seattle ("Port") has no objection to the Board's consideration of additional documents when necessary. In the case of the motion to supplement the record for the motion to stay, filed by petitioner Airport Communities Coalition ("ACC"), however, there is no need to supplement the record because those documents, when viewed in context, do not provide the Board with significant information. In the alternative, if the Board does wish to supplement the record, the Board should also consider relevant documents submitted by the Port to Ecology since briefing on the motion to stay. First, the motion to stay was fully briefed and argued to the Board. Reopening the record on a motion that has already been fully briefed will only erode the orderly process of this case. Moreover, although the ACC attempts to sensationalize certain statements from the hearsay emails it wishes the Board to consider, ACC has made no showing that the low streamflow impacts caused by the Port's Master Plan Update ("MPU") projects will not be fully and completely mitigated. The documents provided by ACC do not admit to deficiencies in the hydrologic modeling or mitigation. Rather, they simply describe the process by which the low streamflow analysis is being revised. Moreover, as explained in detail in the accompanying Third Declaration of Paul S. Fendt, the revised Low PORT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT - 1 FOSTER PEPPER _' SHEFELMAN PLLC 1111 THIRDAVENUE, SUITE3400 50290464.03 AR 005903 0 R_GIN A L SEATTLE' W20_'HIg7GT4_o98101"3299 Streamflow Analysis is…
V V