EXH0224018860

Sent: Sunday, June 13, 1999 1:52 PM To: Luster. Tom: Hellwig, Raymond Cc: McDonald. Tom (ATG): Marchioro, Joan (ATG)_ White Gordon Subject: RE: SeaTac - comments on May 17th mtg Tom. thanks for responding to my and Ray's requests for clarification It's good but I still feel the need to have some of your polrts further explained. So here goes Referring to your items 1 through 4: t) I agree. 2) I believe this should read "The water quality standards require that beneficial uses De supported m the vanous waterbodies and that existmg beneficial uses not be degraded by the pro/ect impacts" 3) I assume this ts true 4) The way I read the antidegradation section of the WQS. I believe this should read, "Until the stanctards are met and the extsL,_q beneficial uses are supported no further degradation can be permitted" Critical words here are existing and further. My interpretation of this would be "the beneficial uses that are present cannot be further degraded" by any project proposal. Let me know (any of the addressees) if this ts an incorrect _nterpretatJon Now. if my interpretation is correct, how can we (your first paragraph, discussing how we use scenario b) say that "the port's proposal can only De reviewed if it gets the waterbody back into compliance with the standards"9 This. in my view would be say=ng that they have to fix all the problems =nthe waterbody (well beyond the full mitigation that would be required for the Third runway),…

Open full document

Upcoming Events

PSCAA Advisory Council Meeting Agenda
Add to CalendarMWednesday Mar 11, 9:00am - 11:35am
1904 3rd Avenue, Suite 105, Seattle, WA 98101
Call to order – Roll Call – Quorum Established – Land Acknowledgement We would like to acknowledge that our Agency operates in four present-day counties, which are the traditional lands of the Coast Salish people, past and present. This acknowledgement does not take the place of authentic relationships with indigenous communities in our jurisdiction and [...]