TagPollution Control Hearings Board(1532)

Draft map prepared by Parametrix, Inc. on November 07, 2001, AR 051191. The document is a draft aerial/planning map showing what appears to be the Sea-Tac Airport area and surrounding communities, with various zones, boundaries, and site designations marked. Labeled as draft and subject to change.

A November 6, 2001 handwritten fax note discusses problems with noise modeling errors and how results will be integrated into legal policies. It notes that AK advised POS to produce a more complete and accurate document, and argues it is not reasonable to hold up port mitigation based on a mistake, stating that if there is no impact, there is no impact. The note also references consultant agreement on impact calculations and requirements related to 401 regulations submitted as group per FAA standards.

Memorandum filed by Citizens Against Sea-Tac Expansion (CASE) supporting its motion to intervene in PCHB No. 01-160, Airport Communities Coalition v. Washington State Department of Ecology and Port Of Seattle. CASE seeks intervenor status under Civil Rule 24 and WAC 371-08-420(1) in the appeal of Amended Clean Water Act 401 Certification No. 1996-4-02325 (Amended-1) issued

Hart Crowser, Inc. geotechnical summary report prepared for the Port of Seattle for presentation to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Seattle District), dated November 2, 2001, project number 4978-06. Covers design of the Third Runway embankment and three mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls (50–135 feet height) at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (STIA). Addresses 17,000,000

Hart Crowser geotechnical summary report (project 4978-06) prepared for the Port of Seattle for presentation to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, November 2, 2001. Covers Third Runway embankment construction at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport: 17,000,000 cubic yards compacted earth fill, maximum fill thickness 165 feet, 2H:1V side slopes, three Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining walls

This November 2001 document from Parametrix, Inc. contains responses to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers questions regarding the Sea-Tac International Airport (STIA) Master Plan Update's natural resource mitigation project. It addresses technical questions about wetland mapping, watershed basin sizes, low-flow analysis, and cumulative wetland impacts across the Miller Creek, Walker Creek, and Des Moines Creek basins, showing projected wetland acreage reductions of approximately 3-4% with the project. The document also covers mitigation measures including wetland restoration sites and performance standards for invasive species control.

ACC’s Separate Statement of Legal Issues filed by Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) in PCHB Case No. 01-160 before the Pollution Control Hearings Board for the State of Washington, against the State of Washington Department of Ecology and Port Of Seattle. Filed November 2, 2001 via fax, received November 5, 2001. Lists 28 legal issues challenging

Stipulation filed November 2, 2001 in PCHB No. 01-160 by Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) against Washington State Department of Ecology and Port Of Seattle, pursuant to Pre-Hearing Order dated October 30, 2001. Three stipulated legal issues: (1) whether Ecology violated applicable law on public and agency notice, hearing, comment, and modification regarding the original 401/404

Report prepared by Parametrix, Inc. for Port Of Seattle regarding the Miller Creek Riparian Corridor and Instream Enhancement Project and Wetland A17 Restoration, part of the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Master Plan Update Improvements. Document AR 052286 covers wetland mitigation design, Army Corps of Engineers requirements, buffer averaging, hydrology, soils, vegetation, grading, landscape plan, performance standards,

This 2001 email chain discusses how fill materials used in the construction of Seattle-Tacoma Airport's Third Runway Embankment should meet environmental criteria under a 401 water quality permit. State regulators and Port of Seattle staff debated which materials — including topsoil, utility backfill, base course, and general embankment fill — required testing, supplier certification, or quality assurance plans to demonstrate compliance. Officials agreed that highly processed materials like topsoil could be covered by supplier certification, while bulk embankment fill would require a statistical sampling and QA/QC program.