TagAirport Communities Coalition(69)

This document tabulates public comments received during a permit review process, likely related to a construction or development project near Sea-Tac Airport. A total of 509 individuals opposed the permit, while 101 supported it, with additional concerns raised across topics including MSE wall integrity, wetlands, hydrology, air and noise pollution, and airport/aircraft safety. The index identifies specific commenters — ranging from environmental consultants to aviation industry groups — and maps each comment to a designated paragraph number for formal review response.

The Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) filed an emergency motion asking the Washington Supreme Court to temporarily halt construction of a proposed third runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. ACC sought to prevent the Port of Seattle from filling wetlands and the Department of Ecology from approving embankment construction while the court's decision on related appeals remained pending. The motion was prompted by reports that the Port planned to begin depositing fill material in April, before the court had issued its ruling.

This declaration, filed before the Washington Supreme Court, was submitted by environmental scientist Dyanne Sheldon in support of the Airport Communities Coalition's emergency request to halt any construction or environmental changes at the Sea-Tac Airport expansion project site. Sheldon, who has over 20 years of wetland ecology expertise and helped establish King County's first wetland management program, argues that the wetlands at the project site cannot be recreated or adequately compensated for if destroyed. The motion asks the Court to maintain the status quo while appeals of a Pollution Control Hearings Board order are decided.

The Airport Communities Coalition filed an emergency motion asking the Washington Supreme Court to block the Port of Seattle from filling wetlands and rerouting Miller Creek in preparation for a third runway at Sea-Tac Airport. The Coalition argued that the Pollution Control Hearings Board's order is legally binding on the Port and the Department of Ecology, and that the Port cannot alter the site's status quo while the appeal is pending. The motion sought an injunction to preserve existing conditions until the court issued a final ruling on whether the project complies with state water quality standards.

Dr. Stephen L. M. Hockaday, a Professor Emeritus of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo with over 25 years of airport and airspace planning experience, submitted this declaration in support of the Airport Communities Coalition's emergency motion for injunctive relief before the Washington Supreme Court. The case involves the Port of Seattle, the Pollution Control Hearings Board, and the Washington Department of Ecology in a dispute related to Sea-Tac Airport expansion. Dr. Hockaday's credentials include serving as Head of Eurocontrol's airspace and airport modelling service and managing major FAA programs at the nation's ten busiest airports.

The Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) filed an emergency motion seeking to stop the Port of Seattle from moving forward with its Third Runway Project without complying with conditions set by the Pollution Control Hearings Board. This supplemental brief, submitted to the Washington Supreme Court, addresses whether the Administrative Procedure Act's stay provisions apply to ACC's request to enjoin the Port from violating the Board's order. ACC argues that the relevant APA provisions do not directly govern its motion, but that an injunction is especially warranted because the Port failed to obtain a stay of the Board's order.

The Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) appealed a federal court decision regarding the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' approval of a third runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. At issue was whether the Corps was required to incorporate all water quality conditions set by Washington State's Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB) into its Clean Water Act Section 404 permit, including protections against polluted fill and wetland impact mitigation measures. The case, heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, centered on whether the Corps acted unlawfully by selectively excluding key state-mandated environmental safeguards from the construction permit.

The Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) filed a motion with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals requesting permission to submit a legal brief that exceeds the standard 14,000-word limit, seeking to file one of 15,195 words instead. The case challenges the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' approval of the Sea-Tac Airport Third Runway Project, one of the largest public works projects in Washington state history, involving the importation of over 23 million cubic yards of fill material. ACC argued the extra length was necessary due to the extreme complexity of the case, which spans a 100,000-page administrative record and raises multiple legal issues under the Clean Water Act and NEPA.

This legal brief was filed before Washington State's Pollution Control Hearings Board by community groups challenging a stormwater discharge permit issued to the Port of Seattle for Sea-Tac Airport. The groups argue that Lake Reba, a detention pond on airport property, should be protected as a 'water of the state' and that the permit unlawfully fails to regulate or monitor the airport's industrial stormwater discharges from Lake Reba into Miller Creek. The appellants contend that, unlike other waterways affected by the airport, Lake Reba's discharge point was not even identified as an outfall, leaving it subject to no effluent limits, monitoring, or reporting requirements.