April 27, 2000August 2, 2026

Exhibit 109: Ecology Letter to Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Re: Port Of Seattle Low Streamflow Analysis Review

Notes

Letter dated April 27, 2000 from Ann E. Kenny, Senior Permit Specialist, Washington State Department of Ecology (Northwest Regional Office), to William A. Rozeboom and K. Malcom Leytham of Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. Responds to their April 11, 2001 letter to Gordon White concerning Ecology’s review of Port Of Seattle’s December 2000 Low Streamflow Analysis. Clarifies that Dave Garland’s March 9, 2001 memo was limited to reviewing Pacific Groundwater Group’s ‘Slice’ model integration along the fill embankment and embankment drainage effects on the Low Streamflow Analysis — not a comprehensive critique. Notes Kelly Whiting of King County was contracted by Ecology to review Port’s HSPF modeling. Ecology has not reached conclusions on adequacy of Port’s submitted materials. AR 017885, Exhibit 109.

Sidebar On/Off

As the source for federal transportation grants, the Puget Sound Regional Council was charged with developing a system to meet the growing need for commercial aviation. When the search for a second airport failed, they authorized the Port of Seattle to build the Third Runway, with a mandate to develop a noise abatement and mitigation program. In their effort to stop the Third Runway, the ACC argued over every detail of the Port's efforts--including property buyouts and sound insulation. The dispute was meant to be settled by a three member Expert Arbitration Panel. This is their final report. It finds 2-1, that the Port's program was insufficient in several respects. Despite that, funding for the Third Runway was approved by the PSRC, and the 'Port Package' program, proceeded largely unchanged. Expert Arbitration Panel's final decision finding that the Port of Seattle had not shown sufficient reduction in real on-the-ground noise impacts to satisfy noise reduction conditions required for approval of a third runway at Sea-Tac International Airport. The majority decision concluded the Port's noise abatement programs were insufficient despite being impressive in scope.

continue...

V V

Notes

Message