TagEnvironmental Impact Statement(33)

forecast demand. As noted in the FAA guidance, the 1996 Master Plan Update has identified the Port’s capital improvement plan, and provides a realistic assessment of needs for accommodating 15.7 million enplaned passengers, which is expected to now occur in year 2005. The plan also reflects the longer-term needs, associated with 19 million enplanements, in a more conceptual fashion. e q tIl Some of the environmental approvals identified by the Final EIS and this Supplemental EIS, may expire within the next 3-5 years. FAA Environmental Guidelines (FAA Order 5050.4 A, Paragraph 102) states “Time Limitations for Environmental Documents b. With regard to approved final impact statements.....(1) if major steps toward implementation of the oroposed action (such as the start of construction, substantial acquisition, or relocation ctivities) have not commenced within 3 years from the date of approval of the final tatement, a written reevaluation of the adequacy, accuracy, and validity of the final =atement shall be prepared. .. .” The Clean Air Act Conformity rules specifically note that a conformity determination “lapses 5 years from the date of the final conformity determination” (40 CFR Part 51.857(a)). [ ! !! ; } p { }} 6. Additional planning will be undertaken at Sea-Tac in the future, encompassing facility requirements and environmental impacts, based on forecasts of short-term, intermediate ald long-term conditions. If these efforts are undertaken around the year 2000, it is anticipated that aviation industry conditions could stabilize, making air travel demand less volatile mId forecasting less uncertain. jf }…

Port of Seattle Response to Highlin8 Water District letter in Draft E.I.S. for Master Plan Upiate at Seatac International Re: PI F-L LA) Dear Mr. Ossenkop and Ms. Hinkle: The response to our July 27. 1995 letter with regard to specific issues effecting the Highline Water District's existIng and future groundwater Issues were not adequately addressed. The District now has water rights to 17.5 million gallons per daY (MGD) of ground water within the Highline area What steps will be taken by the Port of Seattle to mitigate the contamination of the ground watel? VWlat steps will be taken by the Port of Seattle to mitigate the Ioss of ground wateF lecharge to the aquifers now being used and those that will be used in the future? These two simple questions were not addressed by the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Master Plan Update at Seatac InternatIonal Airport. We are expecting a response to our questions which would be acceptable to ou1 District. Sincerely , }h:/ /L &b,,A Keith A. Harris Manager. Planning/Construction KAH mat m 98032 . 824-0375 / FAX: 824-0806 JLN a6 '96 IQ: ISRM POS AV/CbC March 18, Ma. Barbara Hlnkle Port of BeattIe R> Box 68727 8©attle WA 98168 Dear MB e Hlnkl e : Thank you for the oppottunlty to aonnent on the FIn al Bnvironnantal Inpaot 8tateaant (FB18) for the Ha8t8r Plan Update laprovene IIta for Seattle-Taeona InternatIonal Altport+ We revIewed the rE:IB and hav© the £ollovlng coanent8. IIIL a 2+ If you…

response to comments concerning noise issues, aircraft fleet mix has a notable effect on the resulting environmental impacts. Thus, evaluation of impacts associated with a demand level would require the evaluation of the fleet mix associated with that demand. While current regulations mandate the phase..out of Stage 2 aircraft, little is precisely known about which specific aircraft will be flying in years beyond 2010. Estimates of fleet are possible, but their impact on the resulting environmental condition description are significant, and a slight change aom one aircraft type to another could have significant ramifications on noise and air pollution conditions. Because of this variability, the resulting impact analysis would have little meaning. As a result, Appendix D achieves an objective of anaying the possible impacts that might occur in time frames beyond year 2010. See response to comment 2.-Q and 2-J. One commentor indicated that an EIS is required to use worst.-case data, and thus should have used the FAA TAF. NEP A and SEPA do not require the use of worst-case conditions. However, in certain conditions, agencies encourage the use of worst case conditions, such as the air quality analysis. As a result, certain worst-case conditions were used in assessing the impacts of the Port’s new forecast. The Draft Supplemental EIS acknowledges that Master Plans are typically undertaken every 7-.10 years, or for airports experiencing unforeseen growth, plans are undertaken every 3-5 years. Thus, it is anticipated that the Port would likely undertake a new Master Plan Update after…

This is a reproduction of a library book that was digitized by Google as part of an ongoing effort to preserve the information in books and make it universally accessible. https://books.google.com https://books.google.com/books?id=rq01AQAAMAAJ U.S. Department of Transportation FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for OTTON LIBRARY Aviation PROPOSED MASTER PLAN UPDATE DEVELOPMENT ACTIONS stration F A A - W A - NORTH WESTERN UNIVERSITY T t at Seattle SEATTLE -TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT VOLUME 7 OF 7 F r z APPENDIX T This statement is submitted for review pursuant to the requirements of Section 102( 2 ) ( C ) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq ); E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11998 , Floodplain Management; the USC Subtitle VII ; 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq; 49 U.S.C. 47101 et seq; Washington State Environmental Policy Act (RCW 43.21C ); and other applicable laws. The proposed action will impact the 100 -year floodplain as indicated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map. This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is a combined National Environmental Policy Act and Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) document. With regard io SEPA requirements, this EIS represents the second step of a phased environmental review which began with publication of the 1992 Flight Plan Final Els, which assessed alternatives for addressing regional aviation needs. This Final Eis also contains the draft conformity statement, as required by the Clean Air Act amendments. The Port of Seattle, operator of Seattle -Tacoma International Airport,…

Initial Assessment and Recommendations February 1997 Prepared Under a Grant from the State of Washington administered by Washington State’s Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development for the: City of Burien, Washington City of Des Moines, Washington City of Federal Way, Washington City of Normandy Park, Washington Highline School District Highline Community Hospital Prepared by:

S 112th St68th Ave S Seward Park Trl SW H oll y S t Sperry Dr SW th St Edgecliff D r SW Glend ale Wa y S N 3 8th St S 1 th Pl S 2 th Pl SE 8th St S W eb ste r S t S 36th Pl 2nd Ave SW Williams Ave N SE 8th Pl S 1 th St S 1 nd St S 265th Pl 32nd Pl S 77th Ave SE S 2 th St SE 8th Pl 9th Pl S S C hic ag o S t S 126th St SE Carr Rd Ne wc as tle W ay Olson Pl SW Mi nk ler Bl vd SE rd Pl Washington Ave S S 1 th St Island Dr S SW 4th St S 1 th St 36th Ave S Mon ster Rd SW SW Normandy Rd 27th Ave S 116th Pl SE SW 8th St Avalon Dr Lind Ave NW S 2 nd St 106th Ave SE S M yrt le St 2nd Ave S SE 4th St Riverview Blvd S Houser Way N S 1 th St S 1 th St 15th Ave S Lakehurst Ln S D on ov an St Utah Ave S Atlas Pl SW S 2 th St S 1 th St 4th Ave SW Cam elot Dr S R ya n S t S Norfolk St SW 0th St S 1 th Pl SE 4th St SW Br an do n S t Fo…

Supreme Court syllabus for Massachusetts v. EPA case regarding EPA’s denial of petition to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act. The Court ruled that petitioners have standing to challenge EPA’s denial and that the agency must consider regulating greenhouse gases.

Please place these ln Arlene's mailbox. Thanks. Al 3-1-97 5:21pm p. 1 of 7 Date: 3-1-97 Page 1 of 7 " .. / ~ .. ...,. -·--· ~tHrt THE POF:T OF SEA1TI.E'S 3F.D F.IJlH•]AY EIS FAILS ADEC!fJATEL':.( TO EXAl·fWE B·fPACTS TO ~·)ETLANDS AUD PP.ESCF:IBES m ADEC!fJATE l·HTICJATIOU The FAA Must Comply With Federal Requirements for the Protection of Wetlands Every federal agency is obligated "to minimize the destruction loss or degradation of Vetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial valu~s of wetlands in carrying out the agency's responsibilities for ... providing Federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements." 1 Federal agencies, including the FAA, are prohibited from providing funding or other assistance for the construction of projects in wetlands unless they find ·· ( 1) that there is no practicable altemative to such construction, and (2) that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such use." 2 Each of the Master Plan l:"pdate ''Vith Project" proposed alternatives would affect existing wetlands. 3 "Impacts on these wetlands would include: placement of fill material, dredging. removal of existing vegetation, and changes in hydrologic regimes as a result of increase impervious surf ace area and storm water management system restructuring." 4 Section 404 of the Clean Vater Act requires that anyone proposing to discharge dredged or fill material into navigable waters must first obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ('Corps'). 5 "Navigable waters" are defined as…