2002, The Year the Trucks
Stopped Rolling

Summary

The runway battle in the year 2002 was largely about the inability of the Port of Seattle to find a way to design and build the runway without violating State or Federal environmental law. The Port still does not know how to do that, which is why there has been no serious runway construction since 2001.

The Port needed to get two key environmental permits in order to fill wetlands and relocate streams in the area where the new runway would be built. It got the first permit in 2001, but the Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) appealed it to the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB). The Board issued a stay in January, held hearings in March, and ruled in August. The Board granted the permit, but with a list of conditions. The Port appealed, claiming it couldn’t build the runway if required to comply with the conditions.

The second permit was the responsibility of US The Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District. In December, the Corps issued the permit, incorporating some of the PCHB’s restrictions but not all of them. The ACC appealed on the grounds that the Corps was required to incorporate all of the restrictions.

As of now, everything is in the courts on appeal. In the meantime, the Port cannot legally move fill for the runway, so the trucks cannot roll.

The other big event in 2002 was in April, when the Port and the Highline School District finally reached agreement on a $200 million noise mitigation package in Highline schools for damage done by the second runway, built in 1972.

Things that did not happen in 2002,
but should have...

Again, the Port failed to reconcile its claims of serious delay problems with a national study by the FAA in 2001, showing that only one percent of arriving flights at Sea-Tac were delayed by local conditions––well under the threshold of concern to the FAA.

The Port failed for the third year running to issue a revised cost estimate for the third-runway project or a plan for raising the needed money. The last estimate was released in June 1999 before the 150’ high rammed earth wall (the “great wall of Sea–Tac”) and many other items were added to the plan. Our best estimate of construction costs is a billion or more––and the Port apparently has little money on hand to pursue future work.

The Port’s National Discharge Elimination Permit (NPDES)––the permit that allows it to discharge any pollution––expired and a new permit with more stringent pollution controls was supposed to be issued by the Department of Ecology. So far, no permit. The Port is living on a temporary extension. As of now, the rumor is that a draft for public comment may be issued in the second week of February.

2002 In Review

January
Pollution Controls Hearings Board Issues a Stay: On the 9^th, the state Pollution Control Hearings Board issued a stay of the Section 401 certificate previously issued by the Department of Ecology for runway construction work in wetlands and streams. The stay meant that until the Board issued its final ruling, the Airport could not fill wetlands or relocate streams––all part of the runway project. The Board cited the "likelihood of success of the merits of the appeal" of the permit by the Airport Communities Coalition (ACC). The permit was issued by the State Department of Ecology in 2001, and appealed to the Pollution Control Hearings Board by ACC.

The stay order was a huge win for the no-runway campaign. This was the first time that a truly independent reviewing agency had looked at any part of the project on the merits––and their first impression was that the Port’s plans didn’t meet the legal requirements.

The Port immediately appealed the stay to Thurston County Superior Court (but in the end, nothing came of that).

Port asks for bids on wetlands work without a permit: Also in January, the Port advertised for bids for runway-related work in local wetlands, including relocation of Miller Creek––for which the Port did not have the required permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as required by sec. 404 of the federal Clean Water Act.

February
Port advertises for fill bids: In February, the Port advertised for bids for the major third-runway work for the year. The major item was addition of about 2.5 million cubic yards of fill to the existing piles of fill. Two million cubic yards were to come from off-Airport, and half-a-million from other parts of the Airport. The Port expected the bids to range between $30 and $45 million. The ad warned prospective bidders that the Port did not have its Corps of Engineers permit, and that its OK from Ecology was on appeal.

March
Pollution Control Hearings Board holds hearing on “Section 401 Permit”: Starting with a three-week hearing before the Pollution Control Hearings Board in March on the Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) challenge of the Port "section 401 certificate", people in the airport communities learned more about the Federal Clean Water Act than they ever imagined they would. The hearings board heard in great detail about unresolved environmental problems in the third-runway plan. (See the Wetlands Section of our on-line library for copies of many of the submissions from experts.) The stay remained in effect.

Highline passes school bond issues: In March, Highline voters passed a $189.5 million bond issue for their schools, with $50 million earmarked for noise-insulation projects.

April
Port funds school noise agreement. On April 24, the Port of Seattle Commissioners voted to authorize the money to fund a plan to mitigate second-runway noise in the Highline schools. The Port of Seattle, the FAA, the State, and the school district had agreed in principle to provide $50 million each for a ten-year, $200 million package of noise-reduction remedies. Over half of Highline School District schools would benefit. The second runway opened for business in 1972.

Port cancels bids for wetlands work: On 20 April, the Port cancelled its earlier requests for bids for wetlands work and for runway construction. This work has not been re-advertised, and not a spoonful of runway fill has been brought in to the site from off-Airport sites from then till now. The trucks stopped rolling and remain stopped.

June
Old Port National Discharge Elimination (NPDES) Permit continued temporarily:  The date for renewal of the Port’s five-year water-pollution, or NPDES, permit for the Airport came and went. The Port’s proposal for the renewal was not acceptable to Ecology, which was working on its own, much more stringent version. The old permit was continued in effect temporarily.

August
PCHB imposes conditions on Section 401 permit, and Port appeals: On the 12^th, the Pollution Control Hearings Board released its final decision. The Board agreed that the Port should get a sec. 401 certificate––under new and much more stringent conditions. The Port appealed the decision, stating that the conditions imposed by the Board claimed would prevent it from building the runway. This was the second big win of the year for the no-third-runway campaign.

Highline Schools Noise Mitigation: On the 24^{th & 25th}, Highline School District, the Port of Seattle, the FAA, and the State signed the final agreement on the $200 million noise mitigation plan. 

September
Ecology fails to release draft NPDES permit. Ecology was supposed to, but did not, release the draft of the new NPDES permit for the Airport. Discussions with the Port did not resolve disagreements over the new, tough conditions that Ecology wanted.

December
Army Corps issues section 404 permit, and ACC appeals. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at last completed its part of the environmental-approval process for runway work, by issuing a sec. 404 permit for wetlands and stream work. Some but not all of the stringent conditions required by the Pollution Control Hearings Board were included. The ACC immediately appealed to U.S District Court, and on the same day, the District Court temporarily enjoined any work under the permit.

No NPDES Permit: Again, Ecology was unable to release a draft of the new NPDES permit for the Airport.