TagCitizens Against Sea-Tac Expansion(47)

Pre-hearing brief filed by Port Of Seattle before the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB No. 01-160) in Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) and Citizens Against Sea-Tac Expansion (CASE) v. State of Washington Department of Ecology and Port Of Seattle. Argues that Ecology’s 401 water quality certification for the STIA third runway and Master Plan Update (MPU)

Notice of Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel filed March 5, 2002 in PCHB No. 01-160 before the Pollution Control Hearings Board for the State of Washington. Marten Brown Inc. withdraws as counsel for Respondent Port Of Seattle and is replaced by Brown Reavis & Manning PLLC, with Gillis E. Reavis (WSBA #21451) signing for both

Citizens Against Sea-Tac Expansion (CASE) final witness and exhibit list filed with the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB No. 01-160), dated February 20, 2002, in the matter of Airport Communities Coalition v. Department of Ecology and Port Of Seattle. Witnesses listed: Kate Rhoads and Bob Furstenberg of King County DNR. Exhibits include construction stormwater monitoring

Proposed order in PCHB No. 01-160 granting Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) motion to compel inspection of Port Of Seattle property. Orders Port Of Seattle to confer with ACC counsel within two days to schedule site visits for ACC experts, counsel, paralegal, and two client representatives to observe, photograph, and sample wetlands, soils, and streams within

Proposed Order Granting Intervention filed in Pollution Control Hearings Board case PCHB No. 01-160, Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) v. Washington State Department of Ecology and Port Of Seattle. Order grants the Motion to Intervene by Citizens Against Sea-Tac Expansion (CASE) as a party-intervenor. Presented by Smith & Lowney, P.L.L.C., attorney Richard A. Poulin, WSBA #27782.

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

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.

In a December 1998 ruling, King County Superior Court Judge Peter D. Jarvis denied the Port of Seattle's motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Citizens Against SeaTac Expansion, finding that the group had legal standing to challenge the Port's environmental decision regarding replacement wetlands in Auburn. The court determined that this decision was interrelated to the broader Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Master Plan Update, including the proposed Third Runway. While rejecting dismissal, the court stayed all proceedings until the Port completed all required environmental reviews under SEPA and Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act.

In this 1998 court declaration, Lawrence Corvari, Co-President of Citizens Against SeaTac Expansion (CASE), challenges the Port of Seattle's Auburn Mitigation Plan and its environmental review determination. Corvari argues that building replacement wetlands in Auburn rather than near the affected Miller Creek or Des Moines Creek watersheds leaves adverse environmental impacts unmitigated, harming CASE members' ability to enjoy local wildlife and a healthy environment. The declaration also corrects what Corvari describes as misrepresentations of his deposition testimony by the Port's attorneys in their Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing.