Exhibit 224: Email Chain RE: Sea-Tac – Comments on May 17th Meeting, Water Quality Standards and 401 Certification for Des Moines Creek

This 1999 email exchange between Washington State Department of Ecology staff debates the legal basis for requiring the Port of Seattle to restore water quality in Des Moines Creek as a condition of receiving a Section 401 water quality certification for the Sea-Tac Airport third runway project. The central question is whether Ecology can require a single applicant to fix broader watershed problems that pre-exist their project, or whether mitigation can only address the applicant's direct project impacts. Staff ultimately conclude that under antidegradation requirements, no further degradation of the creek can be permitted until existing beneficial uses are restored, meaning the Port's mitigation plan must include measures such as flow augmentation and stormwater controls to bring the creek into compliance with water quality standards.

Notes

Exhibit 224 (AR 018860–018862) is a June 1999 email chain among Washington State Department of Ecology staff — Paula Ehlers, Tom Luster, and Raymond Hellwig — copied to Tom McDonald and Joan Marchioro (ATG) and Gordon White, concerning 401 water quality certification review of the Port Of Seattle’s Sea-Tac Airport third runway proposal and its impacts on Des Moines Creek. The exchange debates antidegradation requirements under Washington Water Quality Standards, whether 401 authority requires a project applicant to restore the entire waterbody to compliance before a permit can be issued, and two scenarios (a: deny permits until standards met; b: allow review if applicant’s mitigation restores beneficial uses). Key topics include Des Moines Creek Class AA beneficial uses, stormwater flows, base flows, water temperature, contaminants, TMDL, RDF (Retention/Detention Facility), flow augmentation, NPDES, and WAC/RCW antidegradation policy. Tom Luster argues both scenarios are defensible uses of Clean Water Act Section 401; Paula Ehlers questions the legal and policy basis for requiring one applicant to fix watershed-wide impairments.

V V