PCHB121003636

PCHBPollution Control Hearings Board of the State of Washington

v. ) THE PORT OF SEATTLE'S MOTION ) FOR PARTIAL SUMMARYJUDGMENT RE: SEPA STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY; and ) THE PORT OF SEATTLE, ) ) Respondents. ) I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF RESPONSE The Port's motion for summary judgment on SEPA issues fundamentally misrepresents17 both the substance ofACC's SEPA issues, and the nature of the SEPA review conducted to date.18 In particular, the issue before the Board is not whether the Port's FEIS and SEIS were legally 2o inadequate at the time they were adopted in 1996 and 1997, respectively. It is, rather, whether, in light of the current scope of the Port's proposal and the significant new plans it has proposed to accomplish it, Ecology correctly found the Port in compliance with SEPA for purposes of CZMA certification (and Clean Water Act § 401 reasonable assurance). AR 003636 r,-.......'i/.'..... _ HELSELL FETTERMAN A LimitedLiabilityPartnership 1500PUGETSOUNDPLAZA P.O.BOX21846 SEA'I-I'LE,WA 98111-3846 PH:(206) 292-1144 Although Ecology's process of concurring on a CZMA certification may itself be categorically exempt from SEPA, the substantive CZMA decision itself is not. Under CZMA, Ecology had to determine whether the Port was in compliance with SEPA. 1 Thus, the SEPA issues raised by ACC arise as one of the several laws which come to bear on the question of CZMA compliance in the parties' Stipulated Issue No. 2:6 Does Ecology's concurrence with the Port's consistency certification, issued pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act ("CZMA"), fail to comply with the requirements of the CZMA and…
V V