BAC SP CATEX Sharyn Parker To Larry Cripe 20170111 0001

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…
V V