BAC SP CATEX Response To Noise Analysis Page 34 Section 5.2.7 Compatible Land Use 0001

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…
V V