TagAirport Communities Coalition(272)

Declaration by Jeanne Moeller, Des Moines resident, filed January 10, 2002, in support of Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) Motion to Compel Inspection of Port Of Seattle property, PCHB Case No. 01-160. Moeller states she participated in a Des Moines Chamber of Commerce tour of the proposed Third Runway construction area at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport approximately

Second Declaration of Steven G. Jones, attorney for Respondent Port Of Seattle, filed in PCHB No. 01-160 (Airport Communities Coalition v. State of Washington Department of Ecology and Port Of Seattle). Jones details ACC’s November 26, 2001 CR 34(a)(2) site visit request, the Port’s December 24, 2001 objections, negotiations with ACC counsel Michael Witek and

Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) interrogatories nos. 1-18 and requests for production nos. 1-6 directed to the Washington State Department of Ecology, filed in PCHB No. 01-160 before the Pollution Control Hearings Board for the State of Washington. Pursuant to PCHB October 30, 2001 Prehearing Order and Civil Rules 26, 33, and 34, ACC through counsel

Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) motion for summary judgment filed January 4, 2002 before the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB), Case No. 01-160, arguing that Ecology’s Section 401 Certification for the Port Of Seattle Third Runway project (Sea-Tac Airport Master Plan Update) should be invalidated because the Port lacks a water right to implement low flow

Declaration by attorney Michael P. Witek of Helsell Fetterman LLP, filed January 4, 2002, before the Washington Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB Case No. 01-160) in support of ACC’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Concerns Section 401 Certification No. 1996-4-02325 and CZMA concurrency statement issued August 10, 2001, related to construction of a Third Runway and

Proposed order from the Washington Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB No. 01-160) granting Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) motion for summary judgment on Issue No. 9(a) — whether a water right is required for implementation of the Port of Seattle’s low flow mitigation plan for the Third Runway Project. The Board found no reasonable assurance of

The Port of Seattle submitted formal objections and responses to interrogatories filed by the Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) before Washington State's Pollution Control Hearings Board, related to a legal dispute over the Port's Third Runway Project. The case centered on the Department of Ecology's water quality certification issued under federal Clean Water Act Section 401. The document outlines the legal procedures governing the exchange of information between the parties during the hearing process.

This document is a deposition of Edward O'Brien, taken on December 21, 2001, as part of a Pollution Control Hearings Board case in Washington State involving the Airport Communities Coalition challenging the Department of Ecology and the Port of Seattle. O'Brien discusses stormwater management techniques, including infiltration facilities, which can be used to treat stormwater quality and mitigate low-flow impacts on surface water systems connected to groundwater. He explains that while infiltration can delay and filter stormwater flows through soil profiles, precise control over timing and flow rates is limited and depends on site-specific soil and hydrological conditions.

Declaration of Kelly Whiting, Senior Engineer at King County Department of Natural Resources, filed before the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB No. 01-133) in Airport Communities Coalition v. State of Washington Department of Ecology and Port Of Seattle. Whiting reviewed the Port Of Seattle’s Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) for Master Plan Update Improvements at

A December 2001 technical letter from Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, written on behalf of the Airport Communities Coalition, identifies inconsistencies in the Port of Seattle's stormwater management plans for Sea-Tac Airport expansion. The letter argues that the Port's hydrologic modeling failed to account for the planned commercial redevelopment of borrow pit areas by 2006, and that the Natural Resource Mitigation Plan reverted to an outdated stormwater approach relying on regional detention facilities to be built by others. These gaps, the consultants contend, prevent a full assessment of the airport Master Plan Update's environmental impacts.