TagEIS(52)

These three maps outline proposed area zoning changes in communities surrounding Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, including White Center, Burien, and nearby neighborhoods. The plans identify land targeted for rezoning across residential categories (such as downzoning to single-family or upzoning to multi-family) as well as nonresidential categories (including airport open use, manufacturing, commercial, and air terminal-related business). Dotted boundaries mark primary impact areas around the airport, reflecting efforts to align land use policy with airport noise and operational concerns.

This document outlines the forty most frequently asked questions about the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), covering topics such as how agencies evaluate a range of alternatives, the role of environmental impact statements (EIS), and the use of environmental assessments (EA). It provides plain-language guidance on requirements like the no-action alternative, mitigation measures, public comment periods, and records of decision. While not specific to airport noise, it serves as a foundational reference for understanding the federal environmental review process that governs major infrastructure projects such as those at Sea-Tac Airport.

The Burien Airport Committee met on January 21, 2020 to discuss key aviation issues affecting the city, including advocating for a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from the FAA rather than a less comprehensive Environmental Assessment (EA) related to Sea-Tac Airport's growth. The agenda also covered topics such as the Port's fuel dumping policy, updates on community re-engagement efforts through StART, and a planned trip to Washington, DC to address airplane noise concerns. Draft minutes from the December 2019 meeting reflect ongoing debates about air quality, health, and safety impacts stemming from airport expansion projects like the International and North Terminals.

These documents relate to community and legal efforts surrounding Sea-Tac Airport flight path and environmental policy in late 2019 and early 2020. They include notes from a December 2019 call with attorney Matt Adams discussing the aftermath of a 9th Circuit Court ruling against the FAA's automated flight turn over Burien, and a letter from 350 Seattle urging Washington State to include climate impacts in a comprehensive Sea-Tac Airport impact study. Key topics include cumulative environmental review requirements, potential EIS obligations under NEPA, and the significant greenhouse gas emissions attributed to Sea-Tac operations.

In a September 2018 letter to the Port of Seattle, Alaska Airlines urged that the environmental review of Sea-Tac Airport's Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP) be conducted as a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) rather than the less rigorous Environmental Assessment (EA) proposed by the Port and FAA. The airline argued that an EIS would provide stronger legal protection, more meaningful public input, and ultimately prove more cost-effective by reducing litigation risk. Alaska Airlines also pushed back on the Port's plan to focus expansion alternatives solely on a North Terminal, advocating instead for serious consideration of extending and modifying existing Main Terminal concourses as a viable alternative.

The Burien Airport Committee (BAC) met on February 20, 2018 to discuss aviation capacity concerns near Sea-Tac Airport, including responses to Resolution No. 396, which calls for addressing regional aviation capacity needs in western Washington. The agenda covered updates on several airport studies, an interlocal agreement among four cities to jointly respond to the Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and ongoing noise-related efforts such as the Quiet Skies Burien initiative. Draft minutes from October 2017 reflect earlier committee work on scoping questions for the EIS and efforts to coordinate a unified voice among nearby airport-impacted cities.

This 2017 Noise Technical Report, prepared by The Greenbusch Group for the Washington State Department of Transportation, evaluates the noise impacts of Phase 1 of the SR 509 Completion Project near Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. It compares the proposed highway improvements against a 2003 environmental impact study, assessing changes in noise levels, affected residents, and noise abatement measures such as sound walls. The report concludes with recommendations for minimizing construction and long-term traffic noise impacts on surrounding communities.

This map, prepared by Landrum & Brown for the Port of Seattle's 14 CFR Part 150 Study Update, shows projected aircraft noise exposure around Seattle-Tacoma International Airport for the year 2018. It illustrates three noise contour zones (DNL 65, 70, and 75 dBA), with the total area above DNL 65 dBA covering approximately 7.3 square miles and affecting an estimated 3,771 housing units and 9,712 residents. The map also identifies noise-sensitive land uses such as schools, churches, hospitals, and libraries within the affected area, and was certified by the Port of Seattle's Director of Aviation Planning and Environmental Programs.

Email from Dianne Pastore, Ecology Director’s Office, to Raymond Hellwig and Curt Hart (cc: Thomas Fitzsimmons, Sheryl Hutchison) requesting briefing materials for Tom Fitzsimmons’ meeting with the Governor and Paul Isaki on the SeaTac 3rd Runway Project. Materials requested by Dennis Clark, Governor’s Office, by COB Tuesday August 7, 2001. AR 017821, Exhibit 96.

GeoSyntec Consultants, hired by the Airport Communities Coalition, wrote to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State Department of Ecology in June 2001 raising serious technical concerns about the proposed Third Runway Expansion at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The letter challenges the Port of Seattle's geotechnical analysis for the West Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wall, arguing that soil strength testing was insufficient, the extent of liquefiable material may have been underestimated, and seismic stability analyses were being performed incorrectly. GeoSyntec concluded that the Port had not yet demonstrated the wall could be safely and economically constructed to withstand potential seismic loads without unacceptable deformation.