TagSea-Tac Communities Plan(236)

Matthys van Leeuwen emailed me a copy of Mathew Adams' memo today dated January 18. In case you already have a copy, there are several points that I think require some further research and possibly you could forward him my comments about the following: The definition of "noise sensitive areas" is contained in Order 1050.1 (7/15), section 1 1.2.(page 1 1- 7). According to this definition, Seahurst is not in a "noise sensitive area" since the noise contours in Sea-Tac's Part 150 demonstrate that Seahurst is probably located in the 50-55 dBA or less, not at or greater than the requisite 65 dBA. This definition correlates with Mathew Adams' assertion on bottom page 2 that an EA is required when flights occur over "noise sensitive areas." Since Seahurst is not located in a "noise sensitive area", this condition would not apply and an EA unnecessary. On page 4 of Matthew's memo, he mentions compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act; and he is correct for properties within a "noise sensitive area" of 65 dBA or greater. Boeing Field's 65 dBA contained many historic properties and it was my responsibility to comply with Section 106 of this Act, so I am very familiar with those regulations and it is not necessary to inventory historic properties affected by aircraft noise unless they are in a noise contour of 65 dBA or greater. Please ask your legal counsel to confirm these points because, as I mentioned in our earlier conversations, meeting the 65…

Response to Noise Analyses by FAA Contained in Section 5.2.7 Noise and Noise-Compatible Land Use from CATEX on page 34 On page 35 of Section 5.2.7, fourth paragraph that begins “As FAA started preparing NEPA documentation for the Preferred Alternative, the first noise analysis results were compared to the noise contours from the SEA Part 150 Study dated October 2013. FAA discovered that the noise exposure levels in the Turboprop-Only Analysis were not consistent with the Part 150 noise contours. This resulted in FAA conducting a second noise analysis that used all arriving and departing aircraft to account for the noise from all aircraft operating within the General Study Area.” Here, FAA admits that the current 2013-2018 Part 150 Study by the Port of Seattle is inconsistent and requires FAA to conduct its own noise analyses within the General Study Area. This is critical because at the time the CATEX was written in 2018, the Part 150 Study for 2013-2018 was in full force and no noise modeling updates had occurred by SEA. Therefore, FAA is saying that they cannot rely on the SEA Part 150 Study as a determination of decibel contour levels; and it’s important to note that the Part 150 Study demonstrates that the majority, if not all, of the General Study Area was within the 40-45 dB DNL. It’s also important to note that SEA recently announced that its flight operations increased 33% between 2014-2016. Since SEA’s Part 150 was outdated, FAA conducted two noise analyses…

af/-d ?in A, A47 Jooo , , . , Response to Noise Analyses by FAA Contained in Section 5.2.7 Noise and Noise-Compatible Land Use from CATEX on page 34 On page 35 of Section 5.2.7, fourth paragraph that begins “As FAA started preparing NEPA documentation for the Preferred Alternative, the first noise analysis results were compared to the noise contours from the SEA Part 150 Study1 dated October 2013. FAA discovered that the noise exposure levels in the Turboprop-Only Analysis were not consistent with the Part 150 noise contours. This resulted in FAA conducting a second noise analysis that used all arriving.and departing aircraft to account for the noise from all aircraft operating within the General Study Area.” Here, FAA admits that the current 2013-2018 Part 150 Study by the Port of Seattle is inconsistent and requires FAA to conduct its own noise analyses within the General Study Area. This is critical because at the time the CATEX was written in 2018, the Part 150 Study for 2013-2018 was in full force and no noise modeling updates had occurred by SEA. Therefore, FAA is saying that they cannot rely on the SEA Part 150 Study as a determination of decibel contour levels; and it’s important to note that the Part 150 Study demonstrates that the majority, if not all, of the General Study Area was within the 40-45 dB DNL. It’s also important to note that SEA recently announced that its flight operations increased 33% between 2014-2016. Since SEA’s Part…

Noise Related AIP Grants for SeaTac 2002-1018 Grant # 136 131 121 116 119 110 111 112 105 106 107 Year v/2015 aol 3 2013 2013 2010 2009 2009 2008 2008 2008 2007 2007 2007 2005 2004 2003 2002 ! Purpose Conduct noise compatibility plan study Noise mitigation measures for public buildings Noise mitigation measures for residences within 65-69 aNL Noise mitigation measures for residences within 65-69 DNL Noise mitigation measures for public buildings Acquire land for noise compatibility within 70-74 DNL Conduct noise compatibility plan study Noise mitigation for residences with 65-69 DNL Acquire land for noise compatibility within 65-69 DNL Noise mitigation measures for public buildings Noise mitigation measures for residences within 70-74 DNL Acquire land for noise compatibility within 70-74 DNL Noise mitigation measures for public buildings Noise mitigation measures for residences within 70-74 DNL Directional insulation for 3 rd runway Multi-residences -- Pinebrook Noise mitigation measures for public buildings Noise mitigation measures for residences within 70-74 aNL Acquire land for noise compatibility within 70-74 DNL Noise mitigation measures for public buildings within DNL 65-69 Noise mitigation measures for residences within 70-74 DNL Acquire land for noise compatibility within 70-74 DNL Noise mitigation measures for residences within 65-69 DNL Noise mitigation measures for residences within 70-74 DNL Acquire land for noise compatibility within 70-74 DNL Noise mitigation measures for public buildings within DNL 65-69 Amount (in dollars) 3.9 million million million million 11,662,255 million 2,635,208 7,414,647 1,950, 145 2,141,866 7,448,855 1,747,830 2,446,000 10,517,000 5,326,000 2,250,000 1,040,000 960,000…

Tbe decision from the 9th Circuit Court has remanded the new flight path through Burien known as the “Burien Turn” to the FAA to analyze for significant cumulative impacts considering the SAMP development. Within the decision the court referred to NEPA 40 CFR § 1508.7 which states: “Cumulative impact” is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. When considering the CATEX issued by FAA for the Burien Turn, the court referred to NEPA 40 CFR § 1508.4 which states: “Categorical exclusion” means a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and which have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency in implementation of these regulations (§ 1507.3) and for which, therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. An agency may decide in its procedures or otherwise, to prepare environmental assessments for the reasons stated in § 1508.9 even though it is not required to do so. Any procedures under this section shall provide for extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded action may have a significant environmental effect. In considering whether FAA should now analyze cumulative effects of the…

t rae’la: AvId tII ill At$!!;iII iSIId{ii:a !go F'T 1I west Mol.J Atall Rt'gtoi’ I'f;fIt! :I' Ajl DO' t :- iI;iiII .i i IJttll. ,- } SOI tIna Aye SW, >,UIl-e ;hCI QI::l1181 1. bVA 98057 q Septemtnr,g201 3 Mr. Mark Reis Managing Director Aviation Division Port of Seattle PO Box 68727 Seattle, WA 98168 Dear Mpa: '7) 1 Grant aMr for $e3ttleTacoma International Airport SeatHe, Washington AIP Pojnt NumtHr &534062-131'2C)13 Contract Number DOT-FA13NM-tX>75 DUNS Number 00-948.3694 Enclosed k a copy of the subject grant offer in tIn amount of $3, WaX).00. Please note that the grant oSor must be acoepted by the sponsor on or before: Friday, September 13, 2013. • -b Please have the appropriate official authorized to execute the Grant Offer sign and date the "Aaeptanc8" with the appropriate offkial attesting to the execution and affixing the $pon80r'$ corporate seal. The attorney for the sponsor then must ex@ute and date tIn "Cat#icat9 of Sponsor’s Attorney" with the date being no earlier than the date of a@eptanoe of the Grant Agreement This action will certify that the aa®pt8nc8 cornplies with all applicable local and state laws and constitutes a legal and bInding obIIgation of the sponsor. A6er execution is completed, please hx (425) 227-1650 or scan and email a copy of the signed Grant Agreernent to yalr FAA prqecR manager not later than: Friday, Septenlber '13, 2013, and, also, ©tum an executed copy to this aBiDe by mdf. All applicable project+elated requirements pertaining to environmental analysis and approval…

This notice of grant ctoseout is based on the following conditions having been met: (1) all work included in the proje9t description has been satisfactorily completed, (2) there are no outstanding grant speciai conditions. (3) all project costs reimbursed by FM under this grant have been determined to be reasonable. eligible and allowable, and {4) the sponsor has complied with all terms and conditions of the grant agreement. Fina! payment has been made and all administrative requirements are satisfied. Anna: cost review of the grant has been completed and the final costs were determined to be reasonable and justified. There are no differences in the amount of funds requested by the sponsor and the arnounts paid out. if an audit reveals any issues. this grant will be re-opened until the outstanding issues have been resolved. Please be advised that in accordance with Federal Regulation 49 CFR Part 18.42. you are required to retain all supporting project documentation for a minimum period of 3 years from the date of the final request for reimbursement. Because most grant obligations extend beyond three years, we strongty encourage you to retain grant documentation for the life of the grant obligations. SIncerely , Mandi Lesauis Seattle ADO Program Specialist e €3 U.S. Department of TranspoRaUon Federal Aviation Administration Grant Agreement Part 1 – Offer Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Seattle, Washington Date of Offer: Monday, September 09, 2013 3-53-0062-131-2013Project Nurnber: Contract Number: DOT-FA13NM-0075 To: Port of Seattle. Washington (herein called the -Sponsor”) The United States of America…

Date of Offer: Monday. Septernber 09, 2013 Project Nurnbec 3-53-0062-131-2013 Contract Number: DOT-FA13NM-0075 To: From: Port of Seattle, Washington (herein called the "Sponsor”) 'n The United States ofArnerica (acting through the Federal Aviation Administration, herein called the “FAA”) WHEREAS, the Sponsor has subrnitted to the FAA a Project Application dated 4/25/2013, for a grant of Federal funds for a project at or associated with the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport which Project Application, as approved by the FAA, is hereby incorporated herein and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the FAA has approved a project for the Airport (herein called the “Project”) consisting of the following: Noise mitigation for Olympic Elementary school; all as more particularly described in the Project Application. FAA Form 5100-37 PG 1 (10-89) Page 1 of 11 • ,n NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to and for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of Title 49, United States Code, and in consideration of (a) the Sponsor’s adoption and ratifIcation of the representations and assurances contained in said Project Application and its acceptance of this Offer as hereinafter provided, and (b) the benefits to accrue to the United States and the public front the accomplishment of the Project and compliance with the assurances and conditions as herein provided, THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, FOR AND ON BEMALF OF THC UNITED STATES. HEREBY OFFERS AND AGREES to pay, as the United States share of the allowable costs incurred in dcconlplishing the Project, 80.00 percent:um of all allowable Project costs. This Offer is…

Ball, Kendall (FAA); Shepherd.S@portseaH Ie.org; Read, Carolyn (FAA) Carriger, Jesse (FAA); Fields, Carlos (FAA); Sanmanin, Frank (FAA) RE: Airport Improvement Program Compliance Requirernents Cert.pdf +1 IB () : ( C : Subject: Attachments: The Seattle ADO, when issuing the grant 3-53-0062-131, used the following methodology within the “Memoranda of Agreement for Sound Insulation in the Highline School District", to fund the North Hill/Mawista project: e The MOA states that the Olympic school is an eligible school under Item 1) ' Item 7) allows the district to close an eligible school and replace the capacity elsewhere only in the dollar amount identified in Exhibit C Column 3. This language was included in the MOA for facilities deemed to be "not worth the insulation effort" and funding would be more appropriately applied to constructing a new building. ' For Olympic, this amount was $3,879,406, which at the time of the MOA was the dollar amount estimated to insulate the Olympic building. e /-X, Item 6 b) states that the District will determine which eligible schools will be replaced and closed, and Olympic was determined to be in this category J Item 7)c, iii, states that the closed school may no longer be used for instructional purposes and the District did provide an exiting Plan for the Olympic site. ' The school district provided documentation that described that the Mawista school received displaced students from the closure of the Olympic school. Basically we followed the MOA in a manner where the list of…

Campbell, Diane; Abenojar, Estec Stevens, Robin; Chamberlin, Mary Ann; Kerr, Craig RE: Highiine School District - Olympic Payment SEA-3-53-0062-131.pdf We received the FAA approval for the grant payout. This was a littie sooner than i had anticipated. Please let me know when you will have the funds available so we can make the full payment to the school district. Thanks, Stan $3,879,406 §969,852 $6,510,419 $11,359,677 X FAA AIP Grant #:131 ADF Ad Va lorem Tax Total Project , Stan Shepherd Manager Airport Noise Programs Port of Seattle PO Box 68727 Seattle, WA 98 t68 P: 206-787-4095 C: 206-890-9628 n=uP POrt Www of Seattle ./' E: shePherd.s@portseattle.org Where a sustainable world is headed. % n@if we All e-mail correspondence to and from this address is subject public djsclosure. e FeD ICC' ]- e) zvc)t 66 US OepaRmerit of TanspQaat tan Federal Aviation Administration Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Una Avenue. S.W., Suite 250 Renton. Washington 98057-3356 July 9. 2014 Ms. Ester Aberldar Program Budget Manager Pod of Seattle PO Box 68727 Seatt ie, WA Airport: Seattie-Tacoma International Airport Location: Seattle, Washington AIP Project Number: 3-53-0062-131-2013 Contract Number: DOT.FA13NM-75 Finat Payment Notification Description: Noise mitigation for Olympic Elementary school; Dear Ms. Aber!<)jar. Your final project closeout documentation has been reviewed and determined to be satisfactory. You may now seek reimbursernent for your final payment of $3.879,406.00. Please review the following grant summary. if your records identify any discrepancy, please notify us immediately. OriQina! Grant Amount :ait–+ I e’- tIll.; =ir; , g…