TagThird Runway(1098)

A March 8, 2001 laboratory report from Columbia Analytical Services sent to John Strand of the Airport Communities Coalition in Richland, WA, presents water quality monitoring results (project 00-101B) from samples submitted on February 20, 2001. The report includes standard data qualifiers and acronym definitions used to interpret inorganic, metals, and organic analytical results. All analyses were conducted under the laboratory's quality assurance program.

Draft memorandum dated March 5, 2001 from Douglas Lindquist E.I.T., Barry Chen PhD P.E., and Michael Bailey P.E. of Hart Crowser Inc. to Jim Thomson P.E. of HNTB, project J-4978-30. Presents revised methods and results of liquefaction analyses for the SeaTac Third Runway embankment, based on revised probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) and one-dimensional site

In March 2001, GeoSyntec Consultants submitted a correction to a technical review letter concerning the Third Runway Project at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, clarifying that the seismic stability analysis used by Hart Crowser may seriously overestimate—not underestimate—the wall's ability to withstand earthquake loads. The firm argued that analyzing only the failure surface with the lowest static safety factor, rather than independently searching for the critical seismic failure surface, is an incorrect methodology. GeoSyntec recommended a proper pseudo-static slope stability analysis to ensure adequate ground improvement measures are applied in the right areas.

In a March 2001 email exchange, Paul Fendt responds to Ken Ludwa regarding specific information requests related to TESC (Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control) facilities, calling the level of detail requested 'absurd.' The information requests from Ludwa included clearing limits, tributary areas for ESC facilities, pump sizes, power supply specifications, spill prevention plans, and the expected duration of temporary facilities. The document appears to be part of an administrative record related to construction or environmental control planning at or near Sea-Tac Airport.

Email chain (Exhibit 2061, AR031718-AR031720) dated February 26, 2001, from Jerald LaVassar (Ecology Dam Safety Office) to Ann Kenny (Ecology), responding to Andrea Grad (Helsell law firm, representing ACC/Airport Communities Coalition). LaVassar explains why the Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) wall at Sea-Tac Airport’s third runway project does not qualify as a dam under WAC 173-175-020,

A February 2001 laboratory report from Columbia Analytical Services transmits water and sediment quality monitoring results to Columbia Biological Assessments in Richland, Washington, under service request K2101038. The report confirms that all analyses were conducted in accordance with the laboratory's quality assurance program, with samples received on February 12, 2001 and preliminary results faxed on February 23, 2001. The accompanying documentation includes standard data qualifier codes for inorganic, metals, and organic results used to interpret analytical findings.

A fisheries biologist hired by the Airport Communities Coalition argues that the Port of Seattle has not provided sufficient scientific evidence to justify a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit for its proposed third runway project at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The report concludes that the Port's plans would harm wetlands, streams, and fish populations—including federally threatened Chinook salmon—in the Miller Creek, Walker Creek, and Des Moines Creek watersheds through contaminated fill, toxic stormwater runoff, and the rerouting of Miller Creek. The biologist urges the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to require additional environmental studies and water quality modeling before any permit decision is made.

A February 2001 letter from Azous Environmental Sciences, submitted on behalf of the Airport Communities Coalition, critiques the Port of Seattle's environmental mitigation plan for the proposed third runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The letter argues that key analyses of wetland functions, permanent and temporary wetland area losses, and cumulative environmental impacts are missing or scientifically unsupported in the Port's December 2000 documents. The author concludes that federal and state agencies lack sufficient information to determine whether the project complies with the Clean Water Act or whether the proposed mitigation adequately offsets the project's adverse impacts on wetlands, streams, and fisheries.

A February 2001 letter from law firm Helsell Fetterman, representing the Airport Communities Coalition (cities of Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, Normandy Park, Tukwila, and the Highline School District), urges the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State Department of Ecology to deny the Port of Seattle's permits for the proposed Sea-Tac third runway. The letter argues that the Port had already spent nearly $300 million on construction before receiving required Clean Water Act approvals, and that its application lacked adequate stormwater management plans and failed to meet water quality standards. Independent experts retained by the coalition found the Port's environmental mitigation proposals to be technically flawed, incomplete, and legally insufficient.

In February 2001, engineering firm GeoSyntec Consultants submitted a technical review letter on behalf of the Airport Communities Coalition, raising serious concerns about the proposed Third Runway expansion at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The review identified significant deficiencies in the geotechnical investigation and analysis supporting construction of the embankment fill and West MSE Wall, including insufficient soil strength data and inadequate seismic safety assessments. GeoSyntec warned that the proposed design — which would result in the world's tallest MSE wall built over weak, potentially unstable soils in a seismically active region — could fail under earthquake conditions, threatening both airport operations and nearby natural resources.