TagCASE(182)

This September 2000 internal briefing document from the Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) outlines the agency's long-running regulatory review of the proposed Third Runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, covering key environmental concerns such as wetland mitigation, stormwater management, and wildlife hazard management. It describes ongoing conflicts with the Port of Seattle over compliance with environmental permits, including a Clean Water Act Section 401 certification that was heavily conditioned in 1998 and subsequently withdrawn by the Port. The document also notes intensifying political pressure from legislators, the Governor's office, and community opposition groups threatening legal action over perceived environmental violations.

Fax cover sheet and two-page letter dated September 7, 2000 from Richard A. Poulin of Smith & Lowney, P.L.L.C. to Raymond Hellwig (Director, NW Regional Office, Washington Department of Ecology) and Tom Luster (Permit Coordination Unit, Ecology), on behalf of Citizens Against Seatac Expansion (CASE) and Waste Action Project (WAP). Letter transmits a 60-day Notice

Email dated May 19, 2000 from Raymond Hellwig (City of Des Moines) to Thomas Fitzsimmons regarding the SeaTac 3rd Runway permitting process. Discusses tight July 2000 decision-making timeframe, King County review of Port Of Seattle stormwater management plan requiring up to 10 more weeks, development of a definitive issues list for the proposed runway, drafting

A December 1999 environmental assessment prepared for Citizens Against Seatac Expansion (CASE) concludes that the Port of Seattle failed to provide sufficient scientific evidence to assure compliance with Clean Water Act water quality standards for its Seattle-Tacoma International Airport expansion project. The report found that stormwater runoff from the airport was causing ongoing violations of toxic substances criteria — particularly for copper and zinc — in nearby Miller and Des Moines Creeks, with pollutant levels sometimes exceeding EPA limits by more than tenfold. The author argues that Ecology therefore lacked a scientifically defensible basis to issue a Section 401 water quality certification for the proposed wetland-filling and stormwater management improvements.

In a November 1999 letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the law firm Smith & Lowney submitted comments on behalf of Citizens Against Seatac Expansion (CASE) opposing a permit for the Port of Seattle's proposed Third Runway expansion at Sea-Tac Airport. The letter argues that the permit should be denied because the project would violate federal and state water quality standards, including toxic effluent limits for copper and zinc, and cause significant degradation to U.S. waters. It urges the Corps to consider not only the direct environmental impacts of the proposed fill, but also the cumulative and secondary effects of all current and future airport operations when making its permitting decision.

Published opinion filed November 15, 1999, Washington Court of Appeals Division One, No. 43100-5-I. Cities of Des Moines, Burien, Federal Way, Normandy Park, Tukwila, Highline School District No. 401, and Airport Communities Coalition (appellants) v. Puget Sound Regional Council, Port Of Seattle, and Commissioners of the Port Of Seattle (respondents). Consolidated with related cases including

A June 1999 fax from Al Furney to Kristen Stewart of the Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) asks whether ACC members are aware of the Port of Seattle's announced plans to haul rock and concrete to the Sea-Tac Airport site. Furney notes that RCAA (Residents Against Airport Noise, or a related community group) is seeking a copy of Merlino's contract with the Port. The fax was copied to the City of Burien, City of Normandy Park, CASE representative Larry Corvari, and Chris Gower.

Email chain dated March 4, 1999 among Tom Luster, Kevin Fitzpatrick, Raymond Hellwig, and Paula Ehlers (Washington State Department of Ecology, NWRO) regarding a Friday meeting at the Army Corps of Engineers about Sea-Tac Airport Third Runway citizen group concerns. Attendees included Corps staff Tom Mueller, Gail Terzi, Jonathan Freedman, Siri Nelson, and citizen group

In January 1999, the King County Superior Court denied the Port of Seattle's motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Citizens Against SeaTac Expansion, ruling that a potential injury from wetland filling near the airport could not be ruled out. The case centered on the Port's plan to fill wetlands in Auburn as part of its Master Plan Update, which included construction of a proposed third air carrier runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The court stayed all further proceedings until the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a final decision on the Port's wetland-filling permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

In January 1999, the Port of Seattle filed a legal memorandum in King County Superior Court supporting a proposed order to stay (pause) a lawsuit brought by Citizens Against SeaTac Expansion (CASE) regarding the expansion of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The central dispute concerned the construction of a proposed third runway and the filling of nearby wetlands, with the Port arguing that court proceedings should be paused until the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a final decision on the Port's wetland-fill permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The two parties disagreed on the exact language defining how long the stay should last, with the Port seeking a clear end date tied to the Corps' permit decision and CASE proposing broader conditions related to Port environmental decisions.