TagAirport Communities Coalition(272)

Pre-Hearing Order in PCHB case 01-133, Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) v. State of Washington Department of Ecology and Port Of Seattle, filed August 23, 2001. ACC challenged the Section 401 certification issued by Ecology. Sets briefing schedule for stay motion: ACC motion due September 11, 2001; respondents’ briefs due September 28, 2001; ACC reply due

Notice of Appearance filed August 28, 2001 by respondent Port Of Seattle in Environmental Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB) proceeding, Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) v. Department of Ecology and Port Of Seattle. Attorneys from Foster Pepper & Shefelman PLLC (Roger A. Pearce, WSBA No. 21113; Steven G. Jones, WSBA No. 19334), Port Of Seattle General

Notice of Appearance filed by Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), represented by Assistant Attorneys General Joan M. Marchioro (WSBA #19250) and Thomas J. Young (WSBA #17366) under Attorney General Christine O. Gregoire, in PCHB No. 01-133, Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) v. State of Washington Department of Ecology and Port Of Seattle, before the Pollution

Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) files a Request for Scheduling Conference before the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB), WAC 371-08-450(4)(d), seeking an expedited briefing schedule and hearing date on ACC’s motion to stay Section 401 Certification Order No. 1996-4-02325, issued by Washington State Department of Ecology to Port Of Seattle on August 10, 2001, for the

A water resources consultant, writing on behalf of the Airport Communities Coalition, argues that the Port of Seattle's July 2001 Low Flow Analysis for Sea-Tac Airport expansion fails to provide reasonable assurance that the project will meet water quality standards in Miller, Walker, and Des Moines Creeks. The letter criticizes the submission as incomplete and rushed, noting missing figures, unfinished sections, and an unresolved plan to store the required 46 acre-feet of stormwater across the three watersheds. The consultant contends that the Port's proposed water quality protections—including filtration, aeration, and biofiltration swales—are unproven, inadequately designed, and fall short of the regulatory standard required for Section 401/404 permit approval.

A declaration by civil engineer William A. Rozeboom, filed with Washington's Pollution Control Hearings Board, raises concerns about the environmental impact of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport's Third Runway construction project. Rozeboom, a stormwater and hydraulics expert retained by the Airport Communities Coalition, warns that the project will reduce low streamflows in Des Moines, Miller, and Walker Creeks during summer months due to increased impervious surfaces and changes to the industrial wastewater system. While the July 2001 Stormwater Management Plan addresses peak flood flows, Rozeboom argues it fails to adequately assess or mitigate the project's impact on low-flow stream conditions.

In this July 27, 2001 letter, attorney Kevin L. Stock of Helsell Fetterman LLP writes to the Washington Department of Ecology on behalf of the Airport Communities Coalition (ACC), protesting that the Port of Seattle submitted a massive two-volume Low Flow Analysis on July 24 while Ecology planned to issue its Clean Water Act 401 certification decision as early as August 6. The ACC argues that this timeline denies the public a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on a critical water quality report, as required by the Clean Water Act and state law. The letter urgently requests that Ecology grant the public a minimum of thirty days to comment on the Port's latest low stream flow analysis before issuing any certification decision.

In a July 2001 letter to the Washington State Department of Ecology, Northwest Hydraulic Consultants raised concerns on behalf of the Airport Community Coalition that the Port of Seattle's ongoing low streamflow analyses for Des Moines, Walker, and Miller Creeks near Sea-Tac Airport were likely underestimating the airport's impact on local waterways. The consultants argued that the models were poorly calibrated for upper-basin conditions and failed to account for post-1994 improvements to the Industrial Wastewater System or the future loss of forested areas due to planned airport development. They requested that a final report on the streamflow analysis and any proposed mitigation measures be made available for public comment before Ecology used it to make its 401 Certification decision.

Northwest Hydraulic Consultants submitted follow-up technical comments to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State Department of Ecology regarding stormwater, hydrology, and hydraulics concerns related to the proposed third runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The letter, written on behalf of the Airport Communities Coalition, challenges the Port of Seattle's responses to earlier criticisms, raising unresolved issues about stormwater management standards, independent design review, cost estimates for detention facilities, and the accuracy of hydrological modeling. Key concerns include ambiguity in which stormwater standards will apply, inadequate quality assurance processes, and inconsistencies in the project's Stormwater Management Plan.

GeoSyntec Consultants, hired by the Airport Communities Coalition, wrote to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State Department of Ecology in June 2001 raising serious technical concerns about the proposed Third Runway Expansion at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The letter challenges the Port of Seattle's geotechnical analysis for the West Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wall, arguing that soil strength testing was insufficient, the extent of liquefiable material may have been underestimated, and seismic stability analyses were being performed incorrectly. GeoSyntec concluded that the Port had not yet demonstrated the wall could be safely and economically constructed to withstand potential seismic loads without unacceptable deformation.