## Facts

- The Port of Seattle proposed an 8,500-foot third runway and related improvements at Seattle–Tacoma International Airport.
- The project required extensive discharge of fill into waters and wetlands, including approximately 23.64 million cubic yards of fill and impacts to all or portions of 50 wetlands.
- Because the project involved discharges into waters of the United States, the Port applied for a Clean Water Act § 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
- After an extended administrative process, the Corps issued the § 404 permit on December 13, 2002, with conditions and mitigation requirements.
- A coalition of local governmental entities and others opposed to the project sued the Corps and its district engineer under the Administrative Procedure Act, seeking to set aside the permit.
- The plaintiff argued the Corps’ decision was unlawful because it inadequately analyzed (i) the project’s need in light of changed aviation forecasts, (ii) practicable, less damaging alternatives (including technology-based operational measures), (iii) cost and economic information, (iv) fill and sediment criteria, and (v) wetland impacts and mitigation methodology.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the administrative record.

## Issues

1. Whether issuance of the § 404 permit was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law under APA review.
2. Whether the Corps reasonably defined the project purpose and need (safety and delay reduction, particularly in poor weather) and supported that determination in the record.
3. Whether the Corps complied with the § 404(b)(1) Guidelines by reasonably evaluating practicable alternatives with less environmental impact, including technology-based or operational alternatives.
4. Whether the Corps’ public-interest review reasonably balanced the project’s foreseeable environmental detriments against asserted public benefits.
5. Whether the Corps’ treatment of cost information, fill criteria, and wetland functional assessment/mitigation was adequately explained and supported.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment to the Corps and the Port of Seattle and denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court upheld the § 404 permit, concluding the Corps considered relevant factors and articulated a rational basis for its decision.
- The court held the Corps reasonably determined the runway served safety and delay-reduction objectives notwithstanding short-term changes in traffic forecasts.
- The court found the Corps adequately considered and rejected technology-only alternatives as insufficient to meet the project’s objectives, especially under low-visibility conditions.
- The court sustained the Corps’ technical choices on fill criteria and wetland functional assessment/mitigation, declining to replace the agency’s expert judgments with competing expert opinions offered by the plaintiff.
- The permit remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- Under the APA, a court sets aside agency action only if it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or contrary to law; the court asks whether the agency considered relevant factors and explained a rational connection between the record and its decision.
- Courts generally defer to an agency’s technical and predictive judgments, particularly where the administrative record contains competing expert views.
- Issuance of a Clean Water Act § 404 permit requires compliance with the § 404(b)(1) Guidelines, including consideration of practicable alternatives with less adverse impact that would meet the project’s basic purpose.
- The Corps must conduct a public-interest review balancing expected project benefits against reasonably foreseeable detriments; a permit may be upheld where the agency recognizes environmental harms, imposes mitigation, and provides a reasoned explanation for concluding benefits justify issuance.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the Corps’ Clean Water Act § 404 permit for Sea–Tac’s third runway because the administrative record supported the Corps’ determinations on project purpose and need, alternatives, mitigation, and public-interest balancing, and the permit decision was not arbitrary or capricious under the APA.


Airport Cmtys. Coal. v. Graves, 280 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (W.D. Wash. 2003)