February 8, 2001August 2, 2026

Exhibit 2060: Ecology Response to PDA Requests on Dam Safety and MSE Wall Review, Plus Memorandum on Retaining Wall Alternatives for Miller Creek

Notes

Email dated February 8, 2001 from Ann Kenny (Ecology Senior Environmental Specialist) to Andrea Grad, Peter Eglick, and Kevin Stock responding to PDA requests regarding Chapter 173-175 WAC Dam Safety review of Port Of Seattle Third Runway stormwater facilities. Covers ISW Lagoon #3, 25.5 acre-foot pond (SDW1A), 37.91 acre-foot pond (SDW1B), MSE wall Dam Safety permit determination, NPDES permit, and 401 water quality certification. Also includes March 6, 2002 memorandum from Jerald LaVassar, M.S., P.E. to Tom Luster evaluating retaining wall and slope alternatives (tied-back walls, bored piles, soil nailing, ground freezing) to reduce wetland impacts near Miller Creek at Embankment Station 174+00 to 186+00, Sea-Tac International Airport. AR 031714-031716, Exhibit-2060.

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