TagPollution Control Hearings Board(1532)

An email dated February 8, 2002, from Peter Willing to John Strand reports turbidity measurements taken during a site visit at Sea-Tac on January 28, 2002, between 11:45 and 12:08. Two samples were recorded: Sample #1 showed tank farm outfall at 281 NTU and DM Creek at 31 NTU, while Sample #2 showed tank farm outfall at 299 NTU and DM Creek at 31.2 NTU. The data indicates significantly elevated turbidity levels at the tank farm outfall compared to the creek reference point.

A February 2002 letter from Marten Brown attorneys transmits two spreadsheets listing reference documents used by expert witness John Strunk in the case ACC and CASE v. Port of Seattle and Department of Ecology (PCHB No. 01-160). The spreadsheets catalog technical reports and studies related to preferential ground water flow paths near the proposed Third Runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, covering sites such as airline fuel farms, maintenance hangars, and contaminated ground water areas. Documents were produced by environmental consultants including Associated Earth Sciences and EMCON, spanning reports from the mid-1990s through 2001.

This document (AR 019657) is a site map of an active construction area at what appears to be Sea-Tac Airport, showing a restricted AOA (Air Operations Area) zone, embankments, and Lagoon 3. Handwritten annotations reference two stockpiles dated 1997 and 1999, with approximate volumes of 400,000 cubic yards and 2,100,000 cubic yards respectively. The map was entered as Exhibit 284 on 2/7/02, with witness Clark and court reporter Diane Mills.

A February 2002 technical letter from GeoSyntec Consultants, written on behalf of the Airport Communities Coalition, raises concerns about the Port of Seattle's low flow analysis for the Sea-Tac Airport Third Runway expansion project. The letter argues that the Port's analysis fails to account for the years-long delay before water would flow through the new embankment fill into drainage systems feeding nearby creeks, potentially leaving those creeks without adequate water during the critical early years of operation. GeoSyntec concludes that the Port has not demonstrated the project's storage vaults are properly sized, and that the underlying computer models are unreliable due to lack of calibration and flawed assumptions about soil hydraulic conductivity.

This is a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) waste discharge permit issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology to Cascade Pole and Lumber Company, a wood preserving facility in Tacoma, Washington. The permit, valid from March 2002 to March 2007, authorizes the company to discharge treated stormwater and process wastewater into the Blair Waterway and Puyallup River, subject to strict discharge limits, monitoring requirements, and pollution prevention measures. Note: this document pertains to water quality regulation and does not contain information related to Sea-Tac Airport noise policy.

A February 2002 technical letter from GeoSyntec Consultants, submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on behalf of the Airport Communities Coalition, raises serious concerns about the Port of Seattle's water flow analysis for the proposed Sea-Tac Third Runway expansion. The letter argues that the Port's analysis fails to account for the years-long delay before water would flow through the new embankment fill into drainage systems, potentially leaving nearby creeks without adequate water during the critical early years of operation. GeoSyntec concludes that the storage vaults designed to protect creek water levels may be significantly undersized due to flawed modeling assumptions and an overestimation of how quickly water would move through the embankment soil.

A February 2002 technical review by GeoSyntec Consultants, submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, raises serious concerns about the Port of Seattle's low flow water analysis for the Sea-Tac Airport Third Runway expansion project. The review argues that the Port's models fail to account for the years-long delay before water would flow through the new embankment fill and reach surrounding creeks, potentially leaving those creeks without adequate water during the critical early years of operation. GeoSyntec concluded that the proposed underground storage vaults may be significantly undersized and that the Port has not reliably demonstrated the project will meet required streamflow conditions.

A February 2002 technical letter from GeoSyntec Consultants, submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on behalf of the Airport Communities Coalition, raises serious concerns about the Port of Seattle's water flow analysis for the Sea-Tac Third Runway expansion project. The report argues that the Port's analysis fails to account for the years-long delay before water would flow through the new embankment fill and reach surrounding creeks, potentially leaving those creeks without adequate water during the critical early years after construction. GeoSyntec concludes that the storage vaults designed to protect creek water levels are likely undersized and that the Port has not reliably demonstrated the project will meet low streamflow requirements.

Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB) case 01-160 denial of summary judgment filed by Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) against Washington State Department of Ecology and Port Of Seattle. ACC sought a ruling that Ecology’s §401 certification lacked reasonable assurance that Port Of Seattle had legal means to permanently mitigate low stream flow impacts of the Third

This February 6, 2002 letter from Helsell Fetterman LLP transmits field notes from a January 28, 2002 site visit by wetlands experts Peter Willing and Bill Rozeboom, submitted as part of the legal case Airport Communities Coalition v. Ecology and Port of Seattle (PCHB No. 01-160). The handwritten field notes document observations of water resources, drainage structures, and site conditions at or near Sea-Tac Airport. The materials were shared with multiple parties involved in the Pollution Control Hearings Board proceeding.