TagSea-Tac Communities Plan(236)

t ++B== &BB1b B B= + • p =+ f : w e J + •eb+ P + b+ + + + + + + p ::}'a+=3£:HJ•o : :•'£=f. +::' >x: : • - • v • ::ec ; ; i, US. Department of TransFwtat€>n Falenl Avtatioa A£ltnini$tr9tkm MarK.h 30, 2006 hh, 1-)ebSorenson Finmcial Analyst, Port of Seattle P.O. Box 68727 Seattle, Washington 98168 Dear Ms. sI ion: We have approved total paylnentunderdle above-referenced project in the amount of $4,935,000.00 based on the 6na1 draw taken ata submitted closeout docrmentadon. Allowable project costs are computed as follows: We feel we have adequate doamentation to close this project. ov@payInent, this pIoject will be reopened aid evaluated. Should you desire SeaRle Sincerely, . dee+)b J. Wade Bryant Maaag@,SeattleAiQoH8 District O£ace J + == qi =;F•+O• + nIf /L: + ++ n+= =wq = = p •;• q + q 38aHb AbHIts Dishict C>tHee IdOI lind AYonn, S,W., StAte 28) Renton West&QIan 9@35.4(B6 Federal AvIatIon Admkriskatton Northwest MaIrdah RegIon Seattle-Tacoma International Airport; AIP Project Number 3-534)062..77 Financial Statment $6,476,538.99)d Costs.el + • lb + e e B b qB e ++++ e e le + gPe e a ial to pnjer# 83 iftobe availablo) e + +e • qe e •a e+ a + e • 9 IB a 8 Allo1 le Costs. a e + 4 6+e8eee• + 6a 4e 6 e e ( 307.788.9.9) $6,168,750.00 $4J35,000.00(80%). 8 •+ B8 + a+ + •aS e • e + e + qe AInLess…

t reel a: AvlatK] II /rdr!;int 51 I'at itIn ! ! nD!'lr'ilt},'rll ',r;,It! :I' Ajl =O1 ti- . J:liII .t’ i L)tilt„,: laG.i tIna Aye SUV, Suite ;ba Rc:triaII. bVA gsa1>7 Not-Tltwt?E ! Mou Atatl’I R€'gloP q Septemtnr,/201 3 Mr. Mark Reis Managing Dir8ctor Aviation Division Port of Seattle PO Box 68727 Seattle, WA 98168 DewMJr dKt'n 1 Grant offer for SeattleTacoma International Alana SeatHe, Washington AIP Pn>jnt Numtnc &53<)062-131.2C)13 Contract Number DOT-FA13NM+)075 DUNS Number 0&948.3694 Enclosed k a copy of the subject grant offer in the amount of $3,a>O,(XX).00. Please note that the grant offer !nust be accepted by the spon&or on or before: Friday, September 13, 2013. • -1 Please have the appropriate official authorized to execute the Grant Offer sIgn and date the '’A®eptance" with the appropriate official attesting to the execution and afBxing the $pon80r$ corporate seal. The attorney for the sponsor then rn&Ist ex%ute and date tIn "Catificate af Sponwx’s Attorney" with the date being no earlier than the date of a@eptan'% of the Grant Agn9ment This action will certify that the aweptanc© cornplies with all applicable local and state laws and constitutes a legal and binding obligation of the sponsor. After exewtion is completed, please fax (425) 227-'1650 or scan and email a copy of the signed Grant Agreenlent to your FAA projefi manager not later than: Friday, S8ptemtnr 13, 2013, and, also, ntum an exeeuted oop'y to this ofRoe by mail. All appIIcable projecjqel8ted requirements pertaining to environmental analysis and approval for this…

FAA Lines of Business and Managers with NEP A Responsibilities Katherine Andrus, Manager, Environmental Policy and Operations, Office of Environment and Energy, AEE-400 Subject: Consolidated Guidance for Implementation of the Categorical Exclusion in Section 213(c)(1) of the PHI Modentization aaa Reform ,4d of 2012 This memorandum provides guidance to implement a legislative categorical exclusion. This memo consolidates two previous guidance memos issued by ABE in December 2012 and July 15, 2015. It clarifies that use of this CATEX must be documented and delineates the information that must be submitted with a request for concurrence by the Office of Environment and Energy (AEE-400) and the Office of Chief Counsel (AGC-60€>) prior to the use of this CATEX. History Congress included provisions in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 20121 to expedite environmental review of certain air traffic procedures implemented as part ofNextGen. Section 213(c)(1) provides: (c) COORDINATED AND EXPEDITED REVIEW. “(1) in General. – Navigation performance and area navigation procedures developed, certified, published, or implemented under this section shall be presumed to be covered by a categorical exclusion (as defined in section 1508.4 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations) under chapter 3 of FAA Order 1050. IE unless the Administrator determines that extraordinary circMmstances exist with respect to the procedure.” The FAA refers to the categorical exclusion described in subsection (c)(1) as CATEX 1.2 CATEX I is listed under paragraph 5-6.5(q) of Order 1050. IF, as follows: Pub. L. 112-95; 126 STAT. II (Feb. 14, 2012) Section 213(c)(2) describes…

Limited Update to the Burien Categorical Exclusion on Remand From City of Burien v. Federal Aviation Administration, 9th Circuit, No. 18-71705 (November 27, 2019) For Letter of Agreement Update to Automate a 250 Degree Westerly Turn for Southbound Turboprops When Seattle – Tacoma International Airport is Operating in North-Flow Between the Hours of 6am and 10 pm January 2020 Prepared by: United States Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Renton, WA Concurrence by: Western Service Center Environmental Specialist Signature: Date: I Invza Name: Environmental Specialist, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, AJV-W25 Western Service Area Operations Support Group Manager Signature: Date: //J2b. Shawn M. Kozica Manager, Operations Support Group Western Service Center, AiV-W2 Description of Action: The Seattle-Tacoma International Airport’s (SEA) Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) and the Seattle Terminal Radar Approach Control (S46) proposed to update their Letter of Agreement (LOA) to include a paragraph that would allow SEA ATCT to issue a westerly turn departure heading for approximately 90 percent of southbound turbc>props taking off in north-flow conditions, in order to enhance safety and efficiency at SEA. Historically, this turn was issued by the departure controller at S46, which caused a slight delay in these aircraft turning west then south to proceed on their filed route. Allowing SEA ATCT to issue the turn is referred to as an “automatic” or “automated" turn because the aircraft is issued the turn prior to or shortly after takeoff by SEA ATCT, therefore leaving the airport environment already in a turn. After…

Why is the word “limited" used in the title? What are conditions within the "conditional approval" issued for the SAMP NTP? Description of Action “in order to enhance safety and efficiency" Safety: The FAA has not provided a safety risk analysis as required by their own regulations. The early turn crosses over two active runways and through protected missed approach airspace and poses increased safety risks compared to the previous procedure that included separation and coordination. The airfield congestion poses safety risk€ due to a constrained facility on too few acres. No safety risk analysis of airfield or airspace congestion has been provided. Efficiency: Industry term that means increased airport capacity. The new procedure provides for more throughput of jet takeoffs which produce more noise and emission impacts to predominately environmental justice communities and new impacts to sensitive land uses throughout Burien. FAA has identified environmental justice eligible residential uses below the new procedure in the first CATEX but has failed to analyze for cumulative impacts and failed to consider health, unique and unknown risks, among other categories they are required to evaluate. 3) 2"d paragraph: “Noise screening revealed minor expected increases...for turboprops only.” This fails to consider the increased noise when added to SAMP noise and previous incremental build projects and other agency proposed actions such as the SOO free extension. The overall noise rises to significant in the project area. Mitigation is required but has not been acknowledged. Although we would expect an environmental analysis to include potential…

Letter of Agreement Update to Automate a 2500 Westerly Turn for Southbound Turboprops When Seattle – Taooma International Airport is Operating in North-Flow Between the Hours of 6 am and 10 pm April 2018 e Prepared by: United States Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Adrninistration 1:#511b r== a 1 : : 1w = : i i nnn: : += = : i + n H 1 :haIr : HI A Renton, WA U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WESTERN SERVICE AREA Categorical Exclusion Letter of Agreement (LOA) update between Seattle – Tacoma Intenlational Airport’s (SEA) Air Traaic Control Tower (ATCT) and the Seattle Terminal Radar Approach Control (S46) to automate a 250'’ westerly turn for southbound turboprops when SEA is operating in north-flow between the hours of 6 am and 10 pm D®criDtion of Action: The SEA ATCT and S46 propose to update their LOA to include a paragraph that would allow SEA ATCT to issue a westerly turn departure heading for approximately 90 percent of southbound tutboprops taking-off in north.'.aow conditions, in order to enhance safety and efficiency at SEA. Historically, this turn was issued by the deparMrre controller at 846, which caused a slight delay in these aircraft turning west then south to proceed on their Bled route. Allowing SEA ATCT to issue the turn is refared to as an “automatic” or “automated” turn because the aircraR is issued the turn prior to or shortly after takeoff by SEA ATCT, therefore leaving the airport environment already in…

X& Salans FMC SNR Denton McKenna Long dentons.corn MEMORANDUM To: Quiet Skies Coalition From: Date: Subject: Matthew Adams January 18, 2017 Claims Against The Federal Aviation Administration You asked us to prepare a non40nfidential memorandum summarizing (1) recent changes to certain departure patterns at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac); (2) potential National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) claims against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) arising from those changes; (3) other potential claims against the FAA under federal law; (4) procedural steps associated with the pursuit of claims against the FAA; and (5) potential remedies. I understand you intend to share this memorandum with certain BuRen stakeholders, including the City Council and the City Attorney, and, for that reason, you have asked that the memorandum, unlike typical attorney4lient communications, be considered non-confidential. 1. Recent Changes to Departure Procedures at Sea.Tac For years, north flow departures from Sea-Tac followed a settled pattern. That pattern involved occasional flights over the City of BuRen, but those flights were rare, were not the subject of procedures, plans, or other formal arrangements, and were dispersed over the City so as to avoid concentrating noise impacts in any particular area. After months of investigation, the Coalition has now confirmed that in the summer of 2016, without notice to City residents, the FAA began experimenting with a new procedure for north flow departures (the New Route). The New Route sends certain aircraft on a fixed, consistent path at low altitude over the City of Burien, resulting in significant noise and…

Be'fore: IKUTA and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,** District Judge. Petitioner, the city of Buden (“Buden”), is a town located to the west of the Seattle-Tacoma Airport (“Sea-Tac”). Burien challenges the FAA’s decision to approve a procedure for turning southbound turboprops to the west in certain wind * This disposition is not q)propriate for publication and is not precedent exl;ept as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the So-'uthern District of New York, sitting by designation. cc)nditions (' Ibe Procedure”). The Procedure automates a formerly manual process ol' assigning headings to such turboprops, and has the eRect of concentrating low- flying planes over Burien after takeoff. Buden argues that the FAA failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act ('HEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq., when it approved the Procedure. We agree in part. NEPA requires agencies such as the FAA to consider and document the environmental impacts of their actions prior to implementing them. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(c). Although NEPA usually requires agencies to conduct some form of environmental analysis before they act, an agency may idaltify certain actions as “categorical exclusions” (“CATEXs”) that are exempt from environmental review. CrTEXs are reserved for actions that do not “individually or cumulatively have a si£;niacant effect on the human edvironnrent.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.4. While agencies promulgate their own rules for identifying and applying CATEXs, all agencies aunt “provide for certain extraordinary circumstances in which a normally ex.eluded…

Subject : FW: KING 5 Information Request - FAA Flight Path Decision From: Brian Wilson Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 4:19 PM To: 'John Parnass' <John.Parnass@ pacificalawgroup.com>; Walter Bala Larry Cripe < ma>; Terrance Plumb <@hoon>; Debi Wagner <debi.wagner@icloud.com> Cc: Council Members <CounciIMem bers@burienwa .gov>; <@@>; Lori Fleming <Wabgrien> Subject: FW: KING 5 Information Request - FAA Flight Path Decision walterba Ia @ mac.com) <waIte rba la@mac.com>; Lisa Marshall <lisam@burienwa .gov>; Emily Inlow-Hood Quiet Skies Partners: FYI reference a media inquiry we received below from King Television. We are taking steps to address this inquiry. It should be noted that we did not receive the statement or press released from the FAA. Their statement is embedded in the e-mail below in RED. Lisa will be handling the media inquiry. Brian J. Wilson City Manager City of Burien (206) 248-5503 office (206) 376-7102 cell bu rienwa .nv Burienwa.gov NOTieE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account may be a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party. From: Emily Inlow-Hood Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 3:46 PM To: Brian Wilson <r V>; Lisa Subject: FW: KING 5 Information Request - FAA Flight Path Decision Marshall <IM burienwa .gov> FAA press release below. Emily Inlow-Hood Communications Officer, City of Burien NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is…

Detailed Responses to City of Burien Questions 1. Question: “Why have there been no studies evaluating increases in aircraft noise on ALL runways since the 2002-2007 Part 150 Study? (The 2013-2018 Part 150 Study evaluated only the third runway.) FAA guidance calls for new noise analyses whenever there is an increase of n'oise oj at least 1.5 dB DNL. The communities believe that there have been increases of at least 1.5 dB DNL given the rapid growth in aircraft operations since 2002. Can you show us any evidence that this is not the case?” The 2014 Part 150 update assessed noise impacts from all three runways and showed a smaller impacted Area; the SAMP Environmental Review will also evaluate noise from all three runways. + The 2013-2018 Part 150 Update, completed in 2014, did in fact include traffic on all three runways and all flight traffic- We believe that the misperception that the study only included the third runway stems from the fact that we scheduled the Part 150 update in order to ensure that all operations were included so as to maxirnize the accuracy of the study – inc tucling but not bm}ted to third runway use The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires airports to model noise exposure using the Day Night Level (DNL) metric; the FAA finds a level higher than 65 DNL incompatible with unmitigated residential uses. With the inclusion of Third Runway operations, the 2014 Part 150 update showed a smaller existing geographic area that was…