TagFAA(238)

AU'rnORITY FOR INVOLVEMENI': FEDERAL FUNDS SPEN!' ON THE AIRroRT Planning Land acquisition • Construction Noise Insulation Equiprent SOURCE OF FUNDS: Federal Aid Airport Program (FAAP) 1946 Airp:>rt Developnent aid program (ADAP) 1970 Planning Grant Program (:ECP) Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act 1979 Airport Improverrent Program (AIP) 1982 AIDUNI' OF FUNDS: Approx 115 Million since 1970 OBLIG.lTIONS TO BE CARRIED OUT BY AIRIORT CMNER: !ORr CF SE1d"1LE · YUse Pro:wrty in accord®ce with reason for acquiring am and cm.IKlL the airport .. Use owned property for compatible uses only Prntect ~p~roacb~R Properly manage the airport funds and revenues ie: Insure airport funds are used for airport purp:>ses. Numerous other· obligations- Civil Rights, Non discrimination, etc FAA fOSITION: We will assist when p:>ssible but all our fonnal agreements must be with the Airp:>rt owner. We have worked with the POS and Counly over the years regarding the proposed park. We concur with the concept of a park provided: The Airp:>rt owner :rraintains ownership and control of the land Airport funds are not used for the park Park only allows uses compatible with the airport The process becomes nuch more complex if the Airp:>rt Owner elects to relinquish fee sinple title. FAA would have to determine that the Federal interest is being protected. The Airport owner would also be required to repay the Govt. the fair :rrarket value of any property given up for the park. It nay be possible to build a taxiway or other developrent in lieu of cash. l…

Letter from Port of Seattle to United Airlines Vice President Captain M.E. Volz providing Sea-Tac International Airport’s noise abatement procedures for United’s pilot information centralization effort. Includes information on FAA noise abatement procedures, Standard Instrument Departures, Visual Bay Approach, run-up curfews, and noise sensitive areas within the 65 Ldn noise contour.

Letter from FAA Northwest Mountain Region to Port of Seattle reviewing draft recommendations for the Noise Remedy Program criteria and boundaries. The FAA expresses concerns about additional 44 single family residences recommended for acquisition based on ‘buffer’ and ‘neighborhood continuity’ criteria rather than noise criteria, and raises questions about the purchase assurance program for 275

Letter from Port of Seattle Executive Director Richard D. Ford to FAA Regional Director Charles Foster requesting clarification on federal financial assistance eligibility for implementing a purchase assurance program as part of Sea-Tac Airport’s noise remedy program. The letter outlines specific questions about costs, property types, implementation requirements, and compliance issues.

FAA Northwest Region letter to Port of Seattle providing review comments on the second draft forecast of aviation demand for Boeing Field (BFI) proposed for use in the SEA/BFI Airspace Study. Comments focus on aircraft mix data requirements, forecast assumptions, and the need for high and low forecast ranges.

Organizational chart showing the project structure for the Airspace Study of Sea-Tac International Airport and King County International Airport. Shows the management hierarchy including Port of Seattle, King County, FAA, and Washington State Department of Transportation involvement.

Letter to the Seattle Times Troubleshooter discussing the Port of Seattle’s acquisition of south and west areas and requesting clarification on FAA guidelines for noise abatement and safety areas. The writer seeks information about clear zone regulations and environmental guidelines for runway development.

Following our disscussion on 25 July 1979, we have prepared five pre- schematic site plans to indicate to you the numbers of people that may be anticipated at the North Seatac site under a variety of development regimes. You are familiar w~h four of the plans, as we presented these to the FAA on 17 July 1979. ~~~ing preliminary recommendations gi¥fn to us at that time, a second 1Modified Passive11 plan was prepareCW You will find all five plans enclosed. The numbers shown on the plan are derived from published information, previous studies, and our own experience. These plans are a very early phase of master planning and are intended only to provoke disscussion. However, they do reflect our natural process- es and social factors studtes to this point. We have analyzed elements such as soils, hydrology, vegetation, and noise, etc. to determine which areas of the North Seatac site could carry varying recreation development intensities. Our studies have been synthesised into the map labeled Carrying Capacity11 which I have included with the pre-schematics. ' If you have any questions regarding the pre-schematics or the process that lead to the Carrying Capacity plan, please feel free to call-I or Dave McNeal will be glad to help you. Sincerely, ~b Janis Sn~ Legend 1!-'Vv~~ [:JJ HI~ -~ate, -~w E:J To rtnl1in it1 riy IJ% Vuy lfi8h : 'lhe area u wiuble far intensivoe activities that IIIII)' attract c:rowds, require DBlipula::i.al of J...ldfarm, aoils, 'W!get.aticn, ar m-e poU!'lti.ally hig:Uy disruptivoe to .-rvirtrment&l…