TagPollution Control Hearings Board(1507)

DRAFT- SUBJECTTO CHANGE - Prepared by Parametrix, Inc. November 07,2001 .-.-.-.--,.----------- -----.- AR 051191 EXH1281051191

Comment #16 states that lead and zinc concentrations in cutthroat trout exceed their respective tissue screening concentrations (herein termed Shephard TSCs) derived by Shephard (1999). Before commenting on the applicability of these TSCs to cutthroat trout, it is important to emphasize that, as the name suggests, these are just screening concentrations. This is a particularly important consideration for mobile fish species (e.g., trout) that may be exposed to metals that are ubiquitous in urban environments. In these cases, it is not possible to unequivocally link the measured metal concentration to an individual source. The remainder of this response focuses on the applicability of the TSCs derived by Shcphard to trout and developmertts of alternative fish-specific TSCs that we believe are more applicable. Note that the TSC t_a'ninology is also used for these alternative values provided below to emphasize that any tissue-based toxicity value for fish should be consid_l a screening concentration and does not provide conclusive evidence of potential risk or link potential risk to an individual chemical source. The Shephard TSCs reported in comment #16 (as the basis of Dr. Strand's contention that lead and zinc are chemicals of concern) are 0.32 and 100 mg/kg dry weight (dw) for lead and zinc, respectively. While neither of these values appear in the citation in Dr. Strand's declaration (Sh_hard 1999), they do appear to be based on a wet weight to dry weight conversion (assuming aquatic organisms are 80 percent moisture) of the TSCs published in Dyer et al. (2000). While…

Third Runway Project Borrow Areas 3 and 4 Seattle-Tacoma International Airport ,=_ Port of Seattle August2001 Parametrix, inc. Portof SeattleNovember1,2001 OnSiteBorrowAr¢_ M¢ITIO ReferenceNo.18 1278 AR 051103 SF.,ATTL_TACOMA IN'IT,RNATIONAL AIRPORT THIRD RUNWAY PROJECT BORROW AREAS 3 AND 4 SAND AND GRAVEL STORMWATEK POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN Preparedfor [ ! PORT OF SEAI"rLE Searde-TacomaInteramionalAirport P.O. Box 68727 Seattle,WA 98168 Preparedby PARAMETlUX,INC. 5808 Lake WashingtonBlvd. NE, Suite 200 Kirkland,WA 98033-7350 August 2001 556-2912-001-01 (90) AR 051104 CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL Theu_anica]mazer_and,_t. coz_medin thisdocume_wee preparedtraderthesupervisionand din_on oftheundersigned. Prep/aredby JufieBrandt,E.LT. Parameuix,Inc. Checkedby PaulPendt,P.E: Parametrix,Inc. / Approvedby Migl_el Feld_m Director,Aviation F_ilitie_ Portof Seattle Borrow Areas 3 mid 4 Slorm_uer PolAau_ Preven::on Plan ,4uffusl 8, 2001 PoMof Stau_ Tared i_anwayP_ J._6-2912-001 (PO) AR 051105 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE OFSTORMWATERPOLLUTIONPREVEN_ON PLAN ........................... 1-1 2. PROJECTOVERVIEW....................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 SITE INFORMATION ............................................................................................2-1 SITEDESCRIPTION............................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 A_ ............................................................................................................2-1 2.4 DRAINAGE .............................................................................................................2-8 2.5 INVENTORYOFMATERIALS............................................................................ 2-8 3. BEST MANAGIDdENTPRACTICES................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 OPERATIONALBMP$........................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 PollutionPrevention Temp........................................................................... 3-1 3.1"_ GoodHousekeeping..................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.3 PreventauveMaimenmcc ............................................................................ 3-2 3.1.4 _mpioyee Training.......................................................................................3-3 3.2 SOURCECONTROLBMPs.................................................................................. 3-3 3.2.1 C-cneralSourceControlBMPs ..................................................................... 3-3 3.2.2 Erosionand Sediment Control..................................................................... 3..4 3.2.3 TopsoilM_agcmcnt. ................................................................................... 3-5 3.2.4 Conu-olof Hazm-dousMaterials................................................................... 3-5 3.2.5 SpillPrevention, ControLandCountermeasuresPlan ................................ 3-5 TRY.ATMENT BMPs ...............................................................................................3-6 3.4 INNOVATIVE BMP$ ..............................................................................................3-6 4. INSPECTIONSAND RECORDKEEPING........................................................................ 4-1 4.1 DRY SEASON INSPECTION................................................................................ _l 4.2 WET SEASON INSPECTION................................................................................ 4-1 4.3 INSPECTIONREPORTS........................................................................................ 4-1 5. DISCHARGEMONITORING ............................................................................................ 5-1 5.1 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS........................................................................ 5-1 5.2 LOCATION AND IDENTIFICATION OFSAMPLINGPOINTS ....................... 5-1 5.3 REPORTINGREQUIREMENTS........................................................................... 5-2 APPENDICES A SELECTEDSOURCECONTROL BEST MANAGEMENTPRACTICES B SPILLPREVENTION,CONTROL, AND COUNTERMEASURES PLAN C STORMWATERMONITORING PLAN Borrow.A,TOZ3 and 4 $tormvaozerPolluuo. P,t.wmlon Pl.. Auffust…

1.1 Purpose of the Conceptual Plan 1 1.2 Project Proponent and Overview 2 1.3 Project Summary Description 3 2.0 SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT 5 2.1 Overview of the Borrow Areas and the Master Plan Update EIS Process 5 2.2 Site Soils and Geology 6 : 2.3 Site Hydrology 7 2.4 Wetlands 8 2.5 Other Anticipated Watershed and Habitat Issues 10 3.0 SUMMARY OF BORROW DEVELOPMENT OPERATIONS 11 3.1 Description of Site Preparation Activities 11 3.2 Description of Excavation Practices and Operating Plan 12 4.0 CONCEPTUAL RECLAMATION PLAN 19 4.1 Description of General Parameters and Features 20 4.2 Reclamation Measures 21 4.3 Timing of Reclamation Activities 24 5.0 REVEGETATION PLANNING, WEED CONTROL, AND WILDLIFE 26 6.0 RECLAMATION AND REVEGETATION MONITORING PLAN 26 6.1 Reclamation and Slope Stability Monitoring Program 26 6.2 Revegetetion and Stormwater Control Monitering Program 26 7.0 REFERENCES 27 DRAWINGS TitleSheet,DrawingIndex,SiteLocationMap,andBorrowAreaand HaulRouteLayout Abbreviations/Legend/Nores SouthAirfieldandBorrowAreaZoningMap DRAFT Pagei,I-4978-65 AR 051054 CONTENTS (Continued) DRAWINGS (Continued) Site ExplorationPlan and Perched Water-BearingZone Elevation Contour Map ShallowRegionalAquiferElevationContour Map, BorrowArea 3 HydrogeologicCrossSectionsfor PerchedWater-BearingZone and ShallowAquifer BorrowArea 3 Wetland ProtectionSwale,Post-ReclamationTopographyand Drainage Facilities HydrogeologicProfile/CrossSectionsfor PerchedWater-BearingZone andWetland DrainageSwale WetlandsMap ShowingPre-ExcavationElevationContours ConceptualHaul Routefrom BorrowAreasto Airfield ConceptualDetail - Haul Route CrossingDes Moines Creek Pre-ExcavationElevationContour Map Year 1: ConceptualMid-Year ExcavationPlan Year 1: ConceptualExcavationPlanNear Endof Year Year 2: ConceptualMid-YearExcavation Plan Year 2: ConceptualExcavationPlan Near Endof Year Year 1: ConceptualEndof Year Concurrent ReclamationPlan Year 2: ConceptualEndof Year FinalReclamationPlan StormwaterActivity Dischargeand Monitoring Plan, BorrowAreas 3 and 4 Hart Crowser DRAFY Page,J-,4978-65 AR 051055 FINAL DRAFT CONCEPTUAL BORROW MATERIAL DEVELOPMENT AND RECLAMATION PLAN BORROW AREAS 3 AND 4…

Re: Water Quality Certification for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice 1990-4- 023_'i: Construction of a Third Runway and related projects at the Seattle-Tacoma InternationalAirport (STIA) in the Miller. Walker. and Des Moines Creek watersheds and in wetlands at the Seattle-Tacoma InternationalAirport. located within Ihc _.icmity of the city of SeaTac. King County. Washington; and in wetlands at the mitigation site in Auburn. King County, Washington. The public notice from the U.S. Amly Corps of Engineers ICorps) for proposed work has been reviewe..d.On behalf of the state of Washington. we certify that the work proposed in the Pan of Seattle's (the Port's) revised Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) dated October 25.2(XX). the Corps"public notice and the Department of Ecology's (Ecology's) public notice complies with applicable provisions of Sections 301. 302. 303.306 and 307 of the Clean Waler Act. as amended, and other appropriate requirements of state law. This letter also serves as tile state reslxmSe to the Corps. Pursuant to Section 307(c)13)of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended. Ecolog) concurs with the Port's certification that this work is consistent with the approved Wasiwlgton State Coastal Zone Management Program This concurrence is based upon tile Port'_ comphancc with all applicable enforceable policies of the Coastal Zone Management Program. inch,drag Section 401 tfl the Federal Water Pollutitm Control Act _,"orkauthorized by this certification is limited to the work described in the October 2.';.2(X_(). JARPA. tileCarp's Public Notice. and the plans sustained by the Port to Ecology lot…

Addendum #4 to the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Borrow Source Areas 3 and 4 and the Incorporation of the Federal Aviation Administration's NEPA Reevaluation Document Addendum to: Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS} and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement {FSEIS}. The Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Master Plan FSEIS was issued by the Port of Seattle on May 13, 1997, following the provisions of the Washington State Environmental Policy Act {SEPA} under Chapter 43.21C. Revised Code of Washington (RC_, Chapter 197-I I, Washington _m_n_strat/ve Code (WAC}, and Resolution 3028, Port of Seattle, SEPA Policies & Procedures. The Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Master Plan FSEIS is available for review at the Port of Seattle Bid Desk, Pier 69, 2711 Alaskan Way, Seattle, Washington OR Port of Seattle Aviation Planning, 3_ Floor, Terminal Building, Sea-Tac Airport, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM weekdays. Name of Project_ Borrow Source Areas 3 and 4 and the Incorporation of the Federal Aviation Arlrni_istration's NEPA Reevaluation Document Project Sponsor. Port of Seattle, P.O. Box 1209, Seattle, WA 98111 I. PROJECT DESIGN CHANGES TO BORROW AJIEAS 3 AND 4. Background: The Port of Seattle issued the Final EIS for the proposed Master Plan improvements in February 1996, which was followed by a Supplemental EIS in 1997. The FSEIS for this proposal was issued on May 13, 1997 pursuant to WAC 197-11- 340. The FEIS/FSEIS included a description of borrow source areas proposed for excavation to…

Northwest Mount=in Region 1601 Lind Avenue. S. W. U.S. Department _. _=ho.Mont=m R=me,W==M_eeeS0S_-40_ of Transportation o_wee.Ut=h,W=shn_ton, Federal Aviation wyom_ Administration August 9, 2001 Colonel Ralph Graves, P.E. District Engines" U.S. Army Corps of Engineers SeattleDistrict Office P.O.Box 3755 Seattle,WA 98124-3766 DearColonelGraves: Thisisourfinalfollow-uplettertoyouprovidinginformationaddressingtheissues raisedinourMay 22_ meetingandyourApril30_ Memorandum forRecord.We apologizeforthedelayincompletingourreviewandgettingourresponsestoyou; however,we believethattheissuesneededtoI_thoroughlyaddressedgiventhe significanceofSeattle-TacomaInternationalAirport'sthirdrunwayprojecttotheregion. Inthecourseofourreviewwe decidedwe shouldvalidatethedataandanalyses containedm theFinalEnvironmentalImpactStatement(FEIS)andFinalSupplemental EnvironmentalImpactStatement(SEIS),throughthepreparationofa written environmentalre-evaluation.Thisprocesshasnow beencompletedinaccordancewith ourprescribedprocedures.As aresult,we haveconcludedthattheprojectcontinuesto conformtotheanalysispresentedintheFEIS/SEISandtheRecordofDecisionissuedon July3,1997. Thereareactuallytwowrittenreevaluations,aswellasanew RecordofDecision.The firstre-evaluationconsiderschangesinforecastaviationactivitylevelsandchangesto themasterplanupdateprojects.Itassessestheenvironmentalconsequencesofthe changeson noiseandlanduse,airquality,andsurfacetraffic.Itidentifiesno significant changeintheimpactsreportedpreviously.The secondre-evaluationreviewsthenew biologicalinformationthathasariseninthelastfouryears,includinginformationon wetlands,endang_'exiandcandidatespecies,commerciallymanagedfishspecies,and migratorybirds.Italsodeterminesthereisno significantchangedenvironmentalimpact. YourMemorandum forRecordasksspecificallyaboutpotentialchangedairquality impacts.Inadditiontothereviewdescribedinthewrittenre-evaluation,we have obtainedacommitment_om thePortofSeattletoannuallydemonstratecompliancewith 1273 AR 051004 de-minimis threshold levels. This commitment will be a condition of grants for the master plan update improvements. As a result of these written re-evaluations, we have concluded that the recent MPU project modifications and the new information concerning environmental impacts do not warrant prt.parationof a new SF__. The .-nclosed Record of Decision, to which the re- evaluations are appended,describes the analyses and conclusions. We hope this information addresses your questions and concerns with respect to therw issues. If you have any furtherquestions, do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, Lowell H. Johnson Manager, Airports Division Northwest Mountain Region CC" Muffy Walker, COE Regulatory Branch bcc: ANM_I0 SEA-ADO AR 051005 EXH1273051004 EXH1273051005

Re: Consulmion on Salmon F.umtbl Fish Habitat _on f_r Mastm"Plm Update T+-_n_vmmmatsat Seattlo-Tmmma Immmional _ (NMFS No. WSB-00-318). Dear Mr. Johnson: This rJz,re_ondeace k in n:sponse to your request far caamdmion under the Ma_uson Stm,ens Fithery Conservation lad Management Act ('MSA). _om were completed previously •for Endangered Species Act and for Essm_l Fish Habitat for costal pedant and West Coast Gmundfish. Consequently this consultmPionis only for P._sentiaIFish Habitat for Pac/fic salmon. Federal agencies are obligated, m2derSection 305Cv)(2) of the MSA and its implementing regulatiuns(50CFR600),toconsultwithNMFSregardingactionsthatareauthorized,funded. or underteken by that agency, tluttmay adversely affect Emmfial Fish Habitat (EFH). The MSA (§3) defines _ as "those waters and suba,h-te neceasary to fir& for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to w*,,,ity." Furthermore. NMFS is required to provide the Federal agency with conservation recommendations which minimize the adverse efl'ec_ of the project and conserve EFH (MSA §305(b)(4XA)). This consultation k based, in part, on information provided by the Federal agency and descriptions of EFH fin"Pacific salmon contained in the Fishery Management Plan produced by the Pacif_ Fitheries Management Cotmcfl. The proposed action and action area ere described in the BA submitted to NMFS in June 2000 and the Essential Fish Habitat Consultation submitted in March 2001. The action area includes habitats which have bee_ldesignated as HH-Ifor various life stages of chinook, coho, and Puget Sound pink salmon. Int'u,wation sub,tied by the Federal Aviation Ad_n/stration (FAA) and the U.S. Army Corps ofEnginee_ (ACOE) in the BA, supplemental correspondence, and the EFH consultation is sufficient far NMFS…

5.5 Method for Integrating Slice Results Over Entire Fill Areas .............................. 13 5.6 Effective Basin Length for Walker Creek ........................................................... 14 5.7 Effective Basin Length for Miller Creek ............................................................. 14 5.8 Integrated Flow Estimates for Walker Creek Fill ................................................ 15 5.9 IntegratedFlow Estimates for Miller Creek Fill ................................................. 15 5.10 Use of IntegratedFlow Estimates ........................................................................ 16 6. REFERENCES............................................................................................... 16 r_--_::_-_ _ Page i AN 050961 Sea-Tac Third Runway Embankment Fill Modeling List of Tables Table 2-1 Summary of Areas Modeled by Hydrus-Slice Table 4-I Summary of Hydraulic Parameters Used for Fill Matrix in the Hydrus-2D Model Table 5-1 Slice 1 Model Parameters for Different Cell Types Table 5-2 Slice 1Model Cell Parameters Table 5-3 Slice 2 Model Parameters for Different Cell Types Table 5-4 Slice 2 Model Cell Parameters Table 5-5 Slice 3 Model Parameters for Different Cell Types Table 5-6 Slice 3 Model Cell Parameters Table 5-7 Summary of Effective Basin Lengths for Walker and Miller Creek Flow Estimates List of Figures Figure 2-1 Site Features for Hydrus-Slice Modeling Figure 4-1 Hydrus Input and Output for Miller Creek Fill - Water Years 1991-1994 Figure 4-2 Hydrus Input and Output for Walker Creek Fill - Water Years 1991-1994 Figure 5-1 Simplified Cross Section for Slice 1 Figure 5-2 Simplified Cross Section for Slice 2 Figure 5-3 Simplified Cross Secdon for Slice 3 Figure 5-4 Model Results for Slice 1 Simulation - Water Years 1991-1994 Figure 5-5 Model Results for Slice 2 Simulation - Water Years 1991-1994 Figure 5-6 Model Results…

Four years ago, on July 3, 1997, I signed a Record of Decision (ROD) approving Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) actions providing support for various Master Plan Update (MPU) development actions proposed by the Port of Seattle (POS), including a controversial third runway project. The 1997 ROD relied upon a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) approved by the FAA on February 1, 1996, and a Supplemental EIS (SEIS) approved by the FAA on May 13, 1997. The instant year-2001 ROD makes the determination that it is not necessary to further supplement the 1996 and 1997 EIS documents at this time, to account for subsequent refinements to the MPU projects and new _ information relating to environmental impacts of these projects. It is not uncon_non during airport design and development, in the period between initial FAA approval of federal actions supporting airport projects and the completion of those projects, for new environmental information to come to the attention of the FAA. Likewise, it is not uncommon for an airport sponsor to propose and make design refinements to - previously-approved projects as those projects proceed towards the construction phase. This is particularly true when the airport development plan involves multiple separate projects proposed to be completed in several stages over a lengthy period of time. At 40 CFR Part 1500, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has promulgated regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. Section 1501.9(c)(1) provides that an agency shall prepare supplements to final environmental impact…