TagPort Of Seattle(2611)

In a May 26, 2004 letter, Port of Seattle Senior Counsel Traci M. Goodwin notified attorney Peter Eglick that the Port planned to begin construction of a third runway at Sea-Tac Airport on or before June 7, 2004, following a Washington State Supreme Court ruling affirming Ecology's Clean Water Act certification. The letter references the case ACC v. Graves (9th Cir. No. 04-35011) and warns opposing counsel of the Port's construction timeline under Ninth Circuit Rule 27-3, which requires advance notice when a party may seek emergency relief within 21 days.

A Port of Seattle resolution authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to execute version two of an Interlocal Agreement with the Cities of Des Moines and SeaTac, Washington State Department of Transportation and King County to fund, construct, operate and maintain capital projects necessary to implement the Des Moines Creek Basin Plan. The projects include construction

In April 2004, the Airport Communities Coalition asked the Washington Supreme Court to halt construction work on a controversial Sea-Tac Airport runway expansion, arguing that long-standing environmental issues — including concerns about fill contamination and damage to creeks and wetlands — needed to be resolved first. The Port of Seattle maintained that a recently passed state law (SSB 5787) allowed it to proceed with certain work, such as rechanneling Miller Creek, even while the court case was still pending. Coalition attorney Peter Eglick filed a supporting declaration attaching a Seattle Post-Intelligencer article in which the Port's Aviation Director confirmed plans to begin work as early as May or June 2004.

In 2004, John Rothnie, the Port of Seattle's Airfield Program Manager, filed a declaration opposing a request to block construction of a third runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac). The declaration outlines the Port's years of planning efforts, including obtaining required environmental certifications and developing a detailed Work Plan to ensure fill materials used in the runway embankment met strict water-quality standards. The Port had been moving forward with the expectation of beginning construction in 2004, following approval from the Washington Department of Ecology and the Pollution Control Hearings Board.

This document is a Declaration by attorney Gillis E. Reavis filed in the Supreme Court of Washington in a case where the Port of Seattle challenged the Pollution Control Hearings Board, Airport Communities Coalition, and Citizens Against SeaTac Expansion. The declaration opposes a motion for injunctive relief and attaches excerpts from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Record of Decision for a Port of Seattle Section 404 wetlands permit (1996-4-02325), which covers environmental reviews under the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and other federal statutes related to airport expansion. The underlying dispute centers on regulatory approvals for Sea-Tac Airport development and its environmental impacts on surrounding communities.

In this 2004 declaration filed with the Washington Supreme Court, Robin V. Kordik, a Senior Environmental Program Manager for the Port of Seattle's Aviation Division, describes efforts to identify wetland mitigation sites near Sea-Tac Airport in connection with the airport's Third Runway construction project. A study by environmental firm Parametrix assessed 89 potential mitigation locations but concluded that no suitable new sites were available in the affected sub-basins that met the Pollution Control Hearings Board's criteria for sustainability and public safety. The declaration was submitted in opposition to a motion for injunctive relief brought by the Airport Communities Coalition.

This 2004 declaration by Michael Feldman, Deputy Managing Director of the Port of Seattle's Aviation Division, was submitted to the Washington State Supreme Court in opposition to a motion for injunctive relief filed by the Airport Communities Coalition. Feldman, who oversaw technical, environmental, and regulatory compliance at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac), describes the airport's Master Plan — adopted in 1996 — which includes the addition of a third runway and other facility expansions to address growing regional air travel demand. The declaration provides context for the decade-long planning and environmental review process behind Sea-Tac's expansion efforts.

The Port of Seattle filed this legal response opposing an emergency request to halt construction of a Third Runway at Sea-Tac Airport. The case centers on a water quality certification issued by Washington's Department of Ecology, which set environmental conditions the Port must meet under the federal Clean Water Act. After years of hearings and appeals — including reviews by the Pollution Control Hearings Board and a federal district court — the Port argued that construction should be allowed to continue as planned.

This March 2004 newsletter from the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs (RCAA) covers several key developments around Sea-Tac Airport, including the Port of Seattle's closed-door attempt to secure a $198.1 million federal bailout for its third-runway project and a $192.6 million construction bid from a local contractor consortium. The newsletter also reports on Southwest Airlines cutting Sea-Tac to Spokane flights due to high operating costs, King County denying two permits for a Maury Island gravel mining operation, and an upcoming public hearing on Boeing Field's Master Plan environmental impact statement.

This 2004 legal declaration, filed before the Washington Supreme Court, supports the Airport Communities Coalition's emergency request to halt construction at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport's Third Runway. Attorney Peter J. Eglick argues that the Port of Seattle's approved Work Plan for embankment construction and wetlands filling would cause irreparable environmental harm and violate a Pollution Control Hearings Board order. The filing includes exhibits documenting concerns about contaminated fill materials and requests that the Department of Ecology intervene to stop construction while the case remained under court review.