TagAirport Communities Coalition(268)

In February 2001, Northwest Hydraulic Consultants submitted technical review comments to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State Department of Ecology on behalf of the Airport Communities Coalition, raising concerns about the stormwater management plan for the proposed third runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The letter identified multiple deficiencies, including dam safety issues, vault structures that violated King County depth requirements, inadequate methods for assessing standing open water durations, and insufficient erosion and sediment control planning. These issues, the consultants warned, could pose risks to both structural safety and safe airport operations if not addressed prior to project approval.

A February 2001 technical review letter from Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, submitted on behalf of the Airport Communities Coalition, raises concerns about the stormwater management plan for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport's proposed third runway expansion. The letter identifies deficiencies in hydrology and hydraulics analyses, inconsistencies in stormwater detention standards, and the lack of a clear independent review process for the complex project. Reviewers warn that without stricter oversight and well-defined engineering requirements, the development risks significant adverse impacts to local streams and wetlands, particularly Miller Creek and Des Moines Creek.

A February 2001 technical review letter from Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, submitted on behalf of the Airport Communities Coalition, raises serious concerns about the stormwater management plans for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport's proposed third runway expansion. The review identifies multiple technical deficiencies in the project's hydrology and drainage designs, warning that they could cause significant adverse impacts to local streams and wetlands, particularly Miller Creek and Des Moines Creek. The letter also criticizes the lack of clearly defined stormwater control standards, absence of independent design review processes, and failure to provide financial guarantees for implementing the stormwater management plan.

A scientist retained by the Airport Communities Coalition wrote to the EPA in December 2000, raising serious concerns about the Port of Seattle accepting contaminated fill materials for the proposed Third Runway project at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The letter argues that the Port improperly used Washington State's Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) cleanup standards as fill acceptance criteria, when those standards were designed to clean up existing contaminated sites, not to permit introducing pollution onto previously clean land. The scientist also criticizes the Port's soil testing methods as statistically inadequate to detect the true extent of contamination, warning that chemicals in the fill could leach into groundwater, wetlands, and surface water including Miller Creek.

A fisheries biologist hired by the Airport Communities Coalition reviewed the Port of Seattle's permit application for the Miller Creek Relocation Project, raising serious scientific concerns about the proposed construction near Sea-Tac Airport. The review found that the project design lacked supporting scientific citations and calculations, and concluded that summer water temperatures would likely exceed safe levels for cutthroat trout for several years until riparian vegetation matured. Additional concerns were raised about inadequate water flow depths and the risk of the stream running dry due to highly porous spawning gravels used in the channel design.

In an October 25, 2000 letter to Washington State Department of Ecology Director Tom Fitzsimmons, the Airport Communities Coalition (representing cities of Burien, Tukwila, Des Moines, Federal Way, Normandy Park, and the Highline School District) protested the removal of senior environmental specialist Tom Luster from the Port of Seattle's third runway 401 water quality permit review. The coalition alleged that political pressure from the Port of Seattle — including secret meetings with the Governor's office and a coordinated public relations campaign — was improperly influencing the regulatory process. The letter demanded Luster's immediate reinstatement, citing his three years of institutional knowledge and commitment to science-based, nonpolitical decision-making on the permit.

In a October 2000 letter to the Port of Seattle, Water Resources Consulting LLC — writing on behalf of the Airport Communities Coalition — raised concerns about the SeaTac Aircraft Hydrant Fueling System project, arguing that construction should be delayed until an ongoing groundwater contamination study under the Model Toxics Control Act was completed. The letter criticized the project's environmental review (Declaration of Nonsignificance) for lacking specific details about leak detection, operating pressures, and contaminated soil management. The consultant warned that deep utility trenching could create preferential flow paths for existing fuel contaminant plumes, potentially threatening the groundwater supplies relied upon by nearby communities.

A fisheries biologist assessed the Port of Seattle's plan to use City of Seattle drinking water to boost summer flows in Miller and Des Moines Creeks when levels drop below 1.0 cubic feet per second. The report concludes that chlorine and fluoride in drinking water are toxic to fish and other aquatic life at very low concentrations, and that mixing drinking water into these small streams would far exceed Washington State water quality standards even with dilution. The biologist recommended against the plan and suggested that treated well water from within the local watersheds might be a less harmful alternative.

This court docket covers a 2000–2001 federal appellate case (No. 00-70848) in which Airport Communities petitioned the Ninth Circuit to review a Federal Aviation Administration decision related to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The petitioner sought a stay pending review, while the Port of Seattle moved to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds, arguing the petition was not filed in time. The court ultimately denied the stay and the motion to dismiss without prejudice, directing all parties to address jurisdictional issues in their merits briefs.