TagFAA(687)

Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP) for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA), developed by Port Of Seattle in cooperation with USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Wildlife Services, Olympia, WA, August 2000, AR 045494. Covers habitat management (grass, wetlands, water, vegetation, structure), wildlife control procedures (bird and mammal control, wildlife patrol), laws and regulations (Washington

Email chain (AR 018453) among Erik Stockdale, Tom Luster (Ecology, tlus461@ecy.wa.gov), and Michelle Avolio (FAA, Michelle.Avolio@faa.gov) regarding the proposed SeaTac TRACON project. Avolio’s April 17, 2000 email to Luster describes FAA planning for an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Biological Assessment (BA) for DOE review and comment, contact with NMFS regarding EA/BA section contents, and discussions

This court docket covers a 2000–2001 federal appellate case (No. 00-70848) in which Airport Communities petitioned the Ninth Circuit to review a Federal Aviation Administration decision related to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The petitioner sought a stay pending review, while the Port of Seattle moved to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds, arguing the petition was not filed in time. The court ultimately denied the stay and the motion to dismiss without prejudice, directing all parties to address jurisdictional issues in their merits briefs.

Letter dated June 15, 2000 from Lowell H. Johnson, Manager of FAA Northwest Mountain Region Airports Division, to Steve Landino, Branch Chief of the Washington State Branch of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), transmitting the Final Biological Assessment (FBA) for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (STIA) development actions under ESA section 7 consultation. The FBA evaluates

This June 2000 Biological Assessment, prepared by Parametrix, Inc. for the Federal Aviation Administration and Port of Seattle, evaluates the potential environmental impacts of proposed Master Plan Update Improvements at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport on federally listed species. The report examines effects on aquatic resources including Chinook salmon, bull trout, and their critical habitats within nearby waterways such as Miller Creek, Des Moines Creek, and the Green River. It was prepared to support Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service.

Biological Assessment prepared by Parametrix, Inc. for the Federal Aviation Administration and Port Of Seattle regarding reinitiation and initiation of Section 7 ESA consultation for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Master Plan Update Improvements. Covers ESA-listed species managed by USFWS and NMFS including Chinook salmon, bull trout, and essential fish habitat (EFH). Analyzes hydrologic systems including Miller

This 1999 manual, prepared jointly by the Federal Aviation Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, provides airport personnel with guidance on managing the safety risks posed by wildlife at airports. It covers topics including the FAA National Wildlife Strike Database, the roles of various federal agencies, and strategies for reducing bird and animal strikes on aircraft. The manual draws on strike records from 1990–1998 to illustrate the frequency, types, and impacts of wildlife encounters with aircraft.

Email chain dated May 12, 1999 among Raymond Hellwig, Tom Luster, Erik Stockdale, and Paula Ehlers (Washington State Department of Ecology) regarding wetland mitigation strategy for the SeaTac Third Runway project (Port of Seattle). Tom Luster shares a Press Democrat article about Petaluma municipal airport’s Cross Creek subdivision wetland resolution with the FAA, proposing a

A May 1999 email exchange between Washington State Department of Ecology staff discusses wetland mitigation challenges near an airport flight path, referencing a similar case in Petaluma, California where seasonal wetlands were allowed to remain near a municipal airport under strict conditions. The staff propose a framework involving monitoring for hazardous bird activity, defined management options, and contingency plans for replacement wetland sites if the existing mitigation proves unsafe. The emails emphasize that while the goal is to find creative regulatory solutions to approve the project under Section 401, denial remains a possibility if adequate safeguards cannot be agreed upon.