TagACC(1531)

Memorandum from Ching-Pi Wang to Ann Kenny (cc: Ray Hellwig, Roger Nye, John Wietfeld, Steve Alexander) dated June 22, 2001, outlining Toxics Cleanup Program (TCP) recommendations for 401 certification related to the Port Of Seattle Third Runway project. Three recommendations: (1) Port Of Seattle to develop a plan by September 14, 2001 to monitor contaminant

Letter dated June 21, 2001 from Jeannie Summerhays (Washington Department of Ecology, Northwest Regional Office) and Elizabeth Leavitt (Port Of Seattle, Aviation Environmental Programs, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport) to Tom Mueller, Chief, Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Regulatory Branch. Pursuant to 15 CFR § 930.60, Ecology and the Port Of Seattle mutually

Record of telecon dated 6-21-01, call from Ann Kenny. Notes that Port has agreed to pay for new scope and minor plan sheet changes. Jim to be given confirmation in writing. July 9th Low Flow meeting scheduled. Parametrix involvement noted — panel 6 may be larger with potential impact. Meeting with Corps to be set

A biologist from Columbia Biological Assessments submitted a rebuttal in June 2001 challenging the Port of Seattle's environmental justifications for proposed construction improvements at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The letter argues that the Port failed to adequately assess impacts on Miller Creek, particularly regarding fish habitat, water temperature, and dissolved oxygen levels in a relocated section of the creek. The author contends that no proper baseline survey of fish and aquatic life was conducted, making regulatory approval of the project scientifically premature.

A biologist with Columbia Biological Assessments submitted a formal rebuttal in June 2001 challenging the Port of Seattle's environmental responses related to proposed Master Plan Update Improvements at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The rebuttal argues that the Port failed to adequately assess impacts on Miller Creek, particularly regarding fish habitat, water temperature, and dissolved oxygen levels during summer months. The author contends that no proper baseline survey of fish and aquatic organisms was conducted, making regulatory approval and proposed mitigation measures scientifically insufficient.

Draft technical memorandum prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI, Project No. BV99122C) for Port Of Seattle, dated June 19, 2001, analyzing preferential ground water flow paths relative to the proposed Third Runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (STIA). Evaluates potential contaminant migration from the Aviation Operations and Maintenance Area (AOMA) to the third runway construction

Email chain (AR017302) among Washington State Department of Ecology staff Chung K. Yee, Kevin Fitzpatrick, Craig Thompson, and AAG Joan Marchioro regarding acceptable fill criteria language for the Draft 401 Water Quality Certification for the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Third Runway project. Key issues include: whether Ecology’s 401 WQ Certification fill criteria should ‘stand alone’ from

Draft technical memorandum prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI, Project No. BV99122C) for Port Of Seattle, dated June 19, 2001, analyzing preferential ground water flow paths relative to the proposed Third Runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (STIA). Responds to Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) request regarding whether contaminated ground water below the Aviation Operations

FAA Northwest Mountain Region letter dated June 19, 2001, from FAA to Ms. Muffy Walker, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch Seattle District Office, following up on May 31, 2001 letter. Addresses three issues raised in April 30, 2001 Memorandum for the Record regarding the Port of Seattle third runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport

Hart Crowser Senior Principal Michael Bailey transmits revised draft plans and cross sections for the Borrow Area 3 Wetland Protection Swale (Job No. 4978-06) to Jim Kelley at Parametrix, June 18, 2001. Documents include Figure 1 (Post-Reclamation Topography and Drainage Facilities), Figure 2 (Typical Cross Sections), Figure 3 (Post-Reclamation Topographical Detail), and Figure 4 (Proposed