**[0:03] Julie Thacker (PRR, host):**
All right, welcome everybody to the Part 150 study for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport virtual public workshop. I’m Julie Thacker from PRR and I’ll be your virtual meeting facilitator this evening. All participants are automatically muted upon arrival and will remain muted through the entire meeting, and those who are attending using Zoom can only see our panelists.
This workshop will be recorded and meeting materials will be made available on the Port of Seattle’s Part 150 study website at seapart150.com.
Today’s workshop will run as long as required to answer all Part 150 study related questions, and it includes a 25-minute pre-recorded presentation.
At the conclusion of the recorded presentation, we will attempt to answer your questions in the order they are received. However, we may group questions based on related topics. So, please don’t be concerned if we don’t immediately answer one of your questions.
Likewise, please don’t submit duplicate questions while waiting for your question to be answered. We do anticipate a large number of questions during tonight’s virtual workshop, and we will work to answer them as thoroughly and efficiently as possible.
We also expect all participants to be respectful and avoid using abusive language or personal attacks in your questions.
To submit a question, please use the Q&A chat icon found at the bottom of your screen. Please note, these will not be considered official public comments. Please follow the instructions on the Port of Seattle’s Part 150 study website to submit your comments on this study.
Again, that’s seapart150.com.
For those of you who have called into this workshop but are not in the Zoom interface, please submit your questions to P150@portseattle.org.
And I’ll now turn this over to Tom Fagerstrom, the Port of Seattle’s project manager for this Part 150 study, who will provide some brief opening remarks before we share the pre-recorded presentation.
**[2:39] Tom Fagerstrom:**
[sighs] Welcome to the Part 150 study virtual public workshop for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, also referred to here as SEA. I would like to thank you for joining us. As Julie mentioned, I am Tom Fagerstrom, the port’s project manager for this study. [gasps] SEA’s last Part 150 study was completed in 2014, and this study is the fourth undertaken at SEA since the initial study was conducted in 1985.
The study identifies and evaluates two components — one, aircraft noise levels, and two, land uses — and has two distinct phases. The first phase is the noise exposure maps, or NEM, phase, where contour maps are produced showing existing and future aircraft noise levels using the Federal Aviation Administration’s, or FAA’s, required day-night average sound level metric, abbreviated as DNL.
This is the phase of the project we are in today, and it will be drawing to a close next spring. The second phase of the project is the noise compatibility program, or NCP, phase, which evaluates measures designed to reduce noise and incompatible land uses within the noise exposure area and recommends measures for consideration by the FAA.
Today’s workshop is a continuation of a series of workshops that will occur during this Part 150 study. This first set of workshops were held in June 2024 and kicked off the study, in addition to providing information about the Part 150 study process. Today’s workshop, in addition to the in-person workshops held two weeks ago, present the draft NEMs and introduce the NCP phase. A third set of workshops planned for late 2026 will present the draft NCP measures for review and comment.
So, thanks again for joining us, and we look forward to hearing your questions and concerns.
**[4:44] Pre-recorded presentation (narrator not identified in audio):**
Hello and welcome to the virtual public workshop for the Part 150 study for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. We appreciate you attending this workshop today, and your participation and input is a key component of this study. This series of workshops is a continuation of the in-person workshops that were held starting on September 30th. Today we will review the draft noise exposure maps and how they were developed for SEA, as well as how to submit formal comments. The slides being presented are also available on the study website at seapart150.com/documents.
Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, or CFR Part 150, establishes the process for preparing noise exposure maps, or NEMs, and noise compatibility programs, or NCPs. Together they are referred to as a Part 150 study. The purpose of a Part 150 study is to determine the existing and future noise conditions in the vicinity of an airport, educate communities on the federal process and what can and cannot be done to address aircraft noise concerns, and submit locally endorsed recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration, or FAA, regarding noise abatement or reduction measures. Part 150 studies are voluntary and must adhere to 14 CFR Part 150 requirements. This is the fourth Part 150 study conducted for SEA, with the most recent update completed in 2014.
A Part 150 study is split into two phases: the noise exposure map, or NEM, phase, and the noise compatibility program, or NCP, phase. This study is currently nearing the end of the NEM phase. The next step in the NEM phase is to publish the draft NEM report. Following the public comment period, we will address your formal comments and the NEM report will be submitted to the FAA for acceptance. We are beginning to transition into the NCP phase of the study as we near completion of the NEM report. The purpose of the NCP is to identify noise abatement, land use, and programmatic strategies to reduce aircraft noise impacts on surrounding communities.
Aircraft noise is regulated at the federal level. The FAA has jurisdiction over civilian aircraft noise and will accept the NEMs once they’re found in compliance with 14 CFR Part 150. The FAA also approves flight procedures, controls aircraft noise at its source by setting noise certification standards, and ensures that pilots and aircraft are safe to fly. State and local governments establish the land use compatibility framework. This includes promoting compatible land use through methods such as zoning and mandating sound-insulating building materials. Airport authorities such as the port are the operators of airports and are primarily responsible for building and managing airport infrastructure such as the terminal and runways. However, airports have very limited authority, as federal law takes precedence over state and local regulations.
The day-night average sound level, or DNL, represents the total cumulative exposure to sound, expressed in decibels, or dB, averaged over a 24-hour period. DNL considers the total number of operations at an airport over the course of a day. DNL also takes into account the time aircraft operations occur, and to reflect the increased sensitivity to noise at night, DNL uses a 10-decibel weighting for events that occur between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Because noise is measured on a logarithmic scale, this equates each nighttime event to being equivalent to 10 daytime events. DNL also uses the concept of average annual day, which reflects a year’s worth of airport operations averaged into a single representative day. The FAA requires the use of DNL for all airport noise assessments, including Part 150 studies.
Regulatory guidelines for noise and land use compatibility are included in 14 CFR Part 150, Appendix A, Table 1. The FAA has established DNL 65 dB as the significance threshold for noise-sensitive land uses such as residential areas. All land use types located outside of the DNL 65 contour are considered compatible for the purposes of 14 CFR Part 150. However, the regulation does allow for the adoption of local land use standards for land use compatibility planning purposes as appropriate. The Part 150 process is the airport sponsor’s way to improve the compatibility between the airport and land use in surrounding communities.
Noise-sensitive land uses include residential, places of worship, schools, libraries, hospitals, and more. Existing and future land uses surrounding the airport are identified and categorized for the NEM report, which is expected to be published later this year and will be posted on the study website at seapart150.com.
Noise modeling provides airport sponsors with key insights into the current and projected noise levels in the vicinity of an airport and in nearby communities. It shows how noise exposure may change over time and how it’s influenced by factors like aircraft type, flight paths, and operating procedures as required by the FAA. This study uses the FAA’s noise model, the Aviation Environmental Design Tool, also referred to as AEDT. Data inputs used in the modeling process to determine the amount of noise exposure include the aircraft type, the distance to the aircraft’s destination — also called stage length — the number of aircraft operations, and arrival and departure times. Data inputs used in the modeling process that determine the distribution of noise exposure include airport runway use, flight track locations and usage, local topography or terrain, and airport meteorological conditions such as average temperature, wind speed and direction, and humidity. All of these inputs are processed through AEDT to generate the noise contours we’ll review later.
For this Part 150 study, aircraft operations were based on the airport’s Sustainable Airport Master Plan Near-Term Projects Environmental Assessment, or SAMP NTP EA. The port, in consultation with the FAA, determined the operations developed for the EA for the 2022 existing conditions and 2032 forecast conditions are compliant with 14 CFR Part 150 requirements and are used as the NEMs for this Part 150 study.
This slide presents estimated annual aircraft operations for the various categories of aircraft operating at the airport. Total annual aircraft operations are anticipated to increase by roughly 74,000 by 2032, with much of the increase forecast for additional passenger and cargo jet operations. On the other hand, passenger turboprop propeller aircraft operations are expected to be entirely phased out by 2032.
The slide also presents the estimated distributions of aircraft operations at the airport by time of day for arrivals and departures. Nighttime arrivals are anticipated to increase by approximately 2% by 2032, while nighttime departures are anticipated to decrease by roughly the same percentage. Please note that all of the data and references used to populate the tables in this presentation will be included in the draft NEM report.
Stage length is the distance an aircraft flies from one airport to another and is reflective of a departing aircraft’s weight. Generally, aircraft with longer stage lengths are larger and heavier and will require more time and distance to climb to altitude, resulting in higher noise exposure levels on the ground. This is demonstrated by the figure on the left, which provides a conceptual example of how stage length affects the climb performance of a Boeing 737-800. The table on the right presents the trip lengths that are assigned to the departure stage lengths defined in the AEDT model, and the table on the bottom presents the distribution of departure stage lengths at SEA for all aircraft in 2022 and 2032 respectively. The majority of departing aircraft are between stage length 1 and 4 for both study years, which is representative of a trip length of less than 2,500 nautical miles.
The prevailing winds at SEA create two distinct operating configurations referred to as north flow and south flow. Since aircraft typically take off and land into the wind, during north flow, arrivals approach the airport from the south, heading north, and departures take off from the airport to the north. This represents approximately 30% of the operations at SEA. During south flow, which is approximately 70% of the operations, the wind is from the south, and thus the arrivals approach from the north heading south, and departures take off to the south.
Flight tracks reflect the paths aircraft fly. The combination of the location and utilization of these paths contribute to the shape of the noise contours around the airport, with the most utilized paths generally driving the areas with larger noise contours. This slide presents a sample of aircraft flight tracks during both north flow and south flow. The image on the left presents north flow operations for the period of August 20th to 26th. Conversely, the image on the right presents a sample of aircraft flight tracks during south flow for the period of February 17th to 23rd. In both figures, aircraft departure flight tracks are depicted in green and arrival flight tracks are depicted in blue. For a closer look at the graphics we’re presenting, a high-resolution copy of this presentation is available on the study website at seapart150.com.
Runway utilization is another important factor affecting the size and shape of the noise contours. Higher runway utilization generally results in larger noise contours emanating off that runway. It is important to note the airport cannot control runway utilization — that is determined by the FAA air traffic control tower and may be impacted by wind and weather conditions, construction on the airfield, aircraft performance, and pilot preferences.
These graphics present the modeled runway utilization for arrivals and departures for the 2022 existing conditions NEM. In 2022, runway 16 left and 34 right are the primary runways used for departures, with runway 16 left accounting for over 65% of all aircraft departures. In contrast, runway 16 right and 34 left were the primary runways for arrivals, with runway 16 right accounting for approximately 63% of all arrivals.
These graphics present the modeled runway utilization for arrivals and departures for the 2032 future conditions NEM. As activity increases at the airport through 2032, in addition to airfield and taxiway improvements, it is anticipated that roughly 20% of all departure aircraft will shift from runway 16 left to runway 16 center under south flow. Runway utilization for arrival aircraft is not expected to change.
This slide presents modeled flight tracks for both the existing and future NEMs based on the flight track data presented in the previous slides. The figure on the left presents the modeled flight tracks for aircraft operating in north flow, and the figure on the right presents the modeled flight tracks for aircraft operating in south flow. Between the 2022 and 2032 scenarios, it is not anticipated there will be substantive changes to aircraft flight procedures that would result in changes to the modeled flight tracks. For both figures, aircraft arrival flight tracks are depicted in blue, departures in green, and missed approaches in pink.
These figures present the density of aircraft flight paths recorded from a rolling calendar year of radar data collected at the airport from September 2024 to August 2025 for north and south flow operations. The figure on the left presents north flow operations and the figure on the right presents south flow. The areas with the greatest concentrations or density of flight paths are presented as warmer red colors, and areas with lesser concentrations are cooler blue colors.
The figures on this slide present the altitudes of aircraft flight paths, in feet above mean sea level, or MSL, recorded from a sample of radar data collected at SEA between August 20th and 26th, 2025, for north flow operations. The figure on the left depicts arrivals and the figure on the right depicts departures. Flight paths with the lowest altitudes are presented as warmer red colors, and highest altitudes as cooler blue and purple colors.
Similar to the last slide, the figures on this slide present the altitudes recorded from a sample of radar data collected at SEA between February 17th and 23rd, 2025, for south flow operations. Similar to north flow operations, the figure on the left presents arrival operations and the figure on the right presents departures.
The draft NEMs include the 2022 existing condition and 2032 future condition, with the future scenario accounting for anticipated changes in aircraft fleet mix, runway use, and operations. The 2032 NEM will be the basis for evaluating potential NCP recommendations and will serve as the basis of comparison for the effectiveness of potential noise abatement measures. The figure on the left presents the draft NEM for 2022 and the figure on the right presents the draft NEM for 2032. Both figures present DNL 65, 70, and 75 noise contours, which are represented by solid black, red, and blue lines respectively. The contours are overlaid with existing land use and depict aircraft noise exposure with regard to land uses in the vicinity of the airport.
This table presents land uses contained within the DNL 65-or-higher contours for the 2022 NEM. In total, over 5,600 acres of land are exposed to DNL 65 or higher, nearly 3,000 of which are located outside of the airport property. There are mixed-use properties, mobile homes, as well as single- and multifamily residences within the 2022 NEM. In total, 6,915 housing units are exposed to DNL 65 or higher. These tables present an overview of noise-sensitive sites contained within the DNL 65-or-higher contours for the 2022 NEM and detail the noise-sensitive sites within each contour interval. Noise-sensitive sites include residential housing units, places of worship, schools, hospitals, historic resources, libraries, and nursing homes. Future sound insulation program eligibility will be evaluated during the NCP phase based on the 2032 NEM.
Consistent with the 2022 NEM, this table presents land uses contained within the DNL 65-or-higher contours for the 2032 NEM. In total, over 6,500 acres of land are exposed to DNL 65 or higher, nearly 4,000 of which are located outside of airport property. In total, 9,941 housing units are exposed to DNL 65 or higher in the 2032 NEM. Similar to 2022, this slide presents noise-sensitive sites exposed to DNL 65 or higher in the 2032 NEM. It should be noted that these figures are preliminary and will be subject to further analysis during the NCP phase. It should not be interpreted as a final determination of eligibility or need for sound insulation.
Comparing the contours, the 2032 contours are larger across all contour intervals. The contours for both draft NEMs for the DNL 65, 70, and 75 are represented by black, red, and blue lines respectively. The 2022 contours are presented as solid lines, where the 2032 contours are presented as dashed lines. Both sets of contours are overlaid with existing land use.
Comparing noise exposure between the 2022 and 2032 NEMs: the top table illustrates that, overall, there are approximately 1,000 more acres of land exposed to DNL 65 or higher in 2032 when compared to 2022. Likewise, for residential land uses, there are 500 more acres of residential land exposed to DNL 65 or higher in the 2032 NEM when compared to 2022. Considering noise-sensitive sites, the bottom table illustrates the 2032 NEM exposes 326 more housing units, three more places of worship, three more schools, and 15 more nursing homes to noise levels of DNL 65 or higher when compared to 2022.
With the completion of the NEMs, we are preparing the draft NEM report, which is expected to be published later this year for review and comment. Following review of all public comments, a final NEM report will be submitted to the FAA for acceptance. As we wind down this phase, we will begin the NCP phase of the study, which we will discuss next.
The purpose of an NCP is to identify noise abatement, land use, and program management strategies to reduce aircraft noise impacts on surrounding communities and propose measures to improve compatibility between airport operations and non-compatible land uses based on the NEMs. Each NCP measure is reviewed by the FAA for technical accuracy, alignment with FAA policy, and the effectiveness of proposed measures. Once the FAA completes review of the NCP, they will issue an approval or disapproval for each measure proposed in the NCP.
In developing NCP measures for submittal to the FAA, measures must include all of the items listed on the right side of the slide. The most prominent criteria include reducing non-compatible land use and/or preventing future non-compatible land uses within the DNL 65-and-higher area, ensuring the safety and efficiency of the airport is not impacted, and excluding unjust discrimination against certain types of aircraft. If an NCP measure does not address each of these considerations listed on the slide, it will not be approved by the FAA. Likewise, the FAA will not approve NCP measures that redirect noise from one community at the expense of another.
When considering the development of potential NCP measures, it is important to distinguish between those measures that are used for noise abatement versus noise mitigation. Noise abatement measures are those that reduce noise exposure by moving the source of the noise, such as by moving an aircraft flight path or changing the utilization of an airport’s runways. Alternatively, noise mitigation measures address land uses that are non-compatible with airport noise and can be either preventative, which address future land uses, or remedial, which address existing land uses. An example of a preventative measure would be to change zoning on undeveloped land to prevent non-compatible development in areas within DNL 65. An example of a remedial measure would be providing sound insulation to residences already located within DNL 65.
Below are some common examples of measures included in NCPs, grouped by noise abatement, land use, and programmatic strategies respectively. Other measures, such as those proposed by stakeholders, may also be included in the NCP. We’ve already mentioned example noise abatement and land use measures. Examples of program management strategies often include noise monitoring and reporting, pilot outreach and education, and future Part 150 study updates.
As noted previously, the NEM phase of the study is drawing to a close. The draft NEM report will be published later this year, and the study team will review comments and prepare a final NEM report for submittal to the FAA in early 2026. Potential NCP recommendations will be screened and analyzed throughout the spring and summer of 2026. Once the NCP recommendations are finalized, they will be included in an NCP report and another series of public workshops will be held. We anticipate that will occur late next year. We also anticipate the NCP will be submitted to the FAA in 2027.
This information is separate from the Part 150 study process we are discussing tonight, but was included at the workshop since it’s related to non-compatible land use. The Port of Seattle has a long history of conducting sound insulation programs for the airport. Since the program began in 1985, the port has insulated over 9,400 single-family homes, seven condos, 11 schools, and is currently in the process of providing insulation to nine apartment complexes and three places of worship. To be eligible for the current program, a resident must reside within the current noise remedy boundary and is also subject to additional FAA requirements. For questions and additional information on this program, please email soundinsulation@portseattle.org.
In addition to the port’s current sound insulation program, the port recently started a sound insulation repair and replacement pilot program. To be eligible for participation in the pilot program, your home must be located inside the current noise remedy boundary, insulated prior to 1993, and acoustically test at or above 45 dB DNL interior. For questions and additional information on the pilot program, please email searepairreplacementpilot@portseattle.org.
To submit written comments on the NEMs or suggestions for the NCP, you may email them to P150@portseattle.org, via the comment portal on seapart150.com, or by mail to the address shown on this slide. We greatly appreciate your attendance and participation in this virtual public workshop for the SEA Part 150 study, and we look forward to answering your questions shortly.
**[29:28] Julie Thacker (host):**
Okay, thank you for joining us for the presentation.
Now we will begin the question and answer portion of today’s workshop. As a reminder, please use the Q&A chat icon at the bottom of your screen to submit your questions. If you’re unable to use Zoom to submit your question, please email P150@portseattle.org.
I’ll note here that this workshop is being broadcast in both English and Spanish. You may notice our panelists speaking more slowly than you would expect and pausing between questions while we wait for the interpreters to finish.
Your questions will help guide today’s interactive portion of the workshop. However, they will not be considered official public comments. Please follow the instructions on screen or visit the port’s Part 150 study website to submit your official comments.
We’ll start by answering the questions that came through during the presentation portion of the meeting, and we’ll continue by answering questions in the order we receive them. As I said before, we may group questions based on related topics. So, please don’t be concerned if we don’t immediately answer one of your questions. And again, please, um, do not submit duplicate questions while waiting for your question to be answered. We anticipate a large volume of questions during tonight’s virtual workshop and will work to answer them as thoroughly and efficiently as possible.
We ask that you keep your questions concise if possible and related to the Part 150 study. As a reminder, we expect all participants to be respectful and to avoid using abusive language or personal attacks. Thank you.
I’ll now introduce the other panelists from our project team.
You already met Tom Fagerstrom. He’s the project manager with the airport’s noise office and worked on the prior Part 150 study and assists with the airport’s SEA Stakeholder Advisory Roundtable, or StART.
Ryan McMullen is the senior manager of the Noise Programs Office, overseeing all aspects of noise mitigation and sound insulation efforts.
Marco Milanese is the community engagement manager at the Port of Seattle and helps manage the port stakeholder advisory roundtable and was involved with the airport’s last Part 150 study.
Julie Kinsey is the airport’s business group director with ESA and is the consultant team project manager. She’s a regulatory subject matter expert with more than 20 years of experience focusing on aviation noise.
Mike Arnold is a senior vice president with ESA and is the project director for this study. He’s a noise subject matter expert.
Chris Noli, also with ESA, is our noise team lead and can provide technical insight into the noise modeling process.
Scott Tatra is a noise subject matter expert with the ESA team and brings more than 25 years of experience in managing aviation noise programs.
All right, we’ve received a lot of great questions already, so let’s get started with the first question. This one is for Tom. Has there ever been a Part 150 study prepared for the Port of Seattle?
**[33:11] Tom Fagerstrom:**
Yeah, thanks Julie. Um, yes, uh, the very first Part 150 was conducted at SEA in 1985. Uh, they are conducted approximately every 10 years or so. Uh, so we have conducted them — we finished, uh, one in 1992, 2002, uh, our previous Part 150 in 2014, and that takes us up to this current, uh, Part 150. So about every 10 years or so we conduct a Part 150 study. It’s very important to reassess the impacts of noise. Uh, as we all know, in 10 years there can be a lot of changes in our airspace and in our airport. So, uh, Part 150 also, um, uh, assures that we continue to be eligible for federal funding for noise programs that come out of a Part 150. Thanks.
**[34:07] Julie Thacker (host):**
Thanks, Tom. This next question is for Julie Kinsey. Julie, what are the roles of the various groups in the Part 150 study?
**[34:16] Julie Kinsey:**
Thank you, Julie. We touched on it a little in the video, but to expand on that — the most important one, for the Port of Seattle, which is the airport sponsor, is being the lead of this study and going through the Part 150 study process. They will endorse recommendations that will be included in the noise compatibility program, or NCP, and they’ll be working with the other stakeholders to evaluate measures throughout this process.
The FAA is a key stakeholder and is involved with controlling airspace and where the aircraft fly. The airport has no jurisdiction over that component — they only control the airport itself, the runways. Anything related to aircraft and where they fly is under the FAA’s authority.
Local governments are responsible for compatible land use development, and that’s another opportunity for the airport and local governments to work together to help ensure compatible land use. Pilots and airlines also work with the port — they have the ability to operate following noise abatement procedures or other noise options that may arrive, retiring older aircraft, etc.
And then we have residents. We want to make sure existing residents know what can and cannot be done to address noise, and we also want our prospective residents to know where the airport is, where aircraft fly, and what they can expect. Really, we want to make sure it’s an education process, and not just during this study, but throughout time. Thank you.
**[36:15] Julie Thacker (host):**
Thanks, Julie. All right, this next question is for Ryan. Ryan, what is the sound insulation repair and replacement program, and how does it relate to the Part 150 study?
**[36:28] Ryan McMullen:**
Um, thanks, Julie. Um, so the the sound insulation, uh, repair and replacement program, um, is unrelated to the Part 150 study. Um, and I would like to emphasize that, um, it is a pilot program. Um, just a little bit, um, of — a little bit of background on it. Um, in early 2024, after [clears throat] hearing concerns from the community about the existing conditions, um, and acoustic performance of previously installed, uh, sound insulation packages, uh, the port commission, uh, created the pilot program.
Uh, the first phase of the pilot program included the distribution of a comprehensive survey to approximately 3,200, uh, single-family homes, uh, located in the current noise remedy boundary. Um, [clears throat] following the survey, um, our staff conducted a field assessment, uh, that included acoustic testing and documentation of the, um, existing conditions of the sound insulation packages at 30 homes. Uh, the results of the survey and documentation associated, uh, with the site visits, uh, can be found in a technical report on the port’s website. Um, there is, uh, limited funding, um, available, with, uh, $5 million in tax levy, uh, funding, uh, being set aside for design and construction associated with the pilot program.
Um, and to be eligible for the pilot program, uh, your home, um, must be located within the current noise remedy boundary, um, insulated prior to January 1st, 1993, and acoustically test at, uh, or greater than, uh, 45 dB interior. Thanks, Julie.
**[38:23] Julie Thacker (host):**
All right, Tom. Will the full slide deck be available? And if so, where can we find it?
**[38:32] Tom Fagerstrom:**
Yes. Yes, it will, and it will be available at our website, seapart150.com. Uh, in fact, if you went there now, you’d see all of the boards that were used at our in-person meetings. And these slides really mirror those boards that were used at our in-person meetings. So, so in effect, those are already there. Um, but this entire meeting will be, uh, recorded and placed on that website as well.
**[39:02] Marco Milanese:**
Thank you, Julie. Can I add one thing as well, please? Thank you. Also, on the website that Tom just mentioned, seapart150.com, we do have a large-scale map of the noise exposure maps that anyone can go to and expand out and identify where they live in relation to those contours. So, it’s a really helpful feature as well that I urge people to take a look at and use.
**[39:31] Julie Thacker (host):**
Thanks, Marco. Okay, this question is for you, Chris. How can a resident measure decibel levels in their home during the 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. period, and how can they report that to the proper authority?
**[39:47] Chris Noli:**
Sure. Uh, so I’ll start by saying that the Part 150 process is looking at the exterior noise level and identifying compatible and non-compatible land uses. When it comes to the noise experienced inside a home, there are two options the homeowner can do — uh, they could submit a noise complaint through the Port of Seattle’s system, uh, which will identify the aircraft that caused the noise event. The other option is to also contact the noise office and see if that home is eligible, uh, under their residential sound insulation program — the program Ryan briefly touched on.
**[40:37] Julie Thacker (host):**
Thank you. This next question is for Julie Kinsey. Julie, is Beacon Hill or neighborhoods under the flight path included in the flight paths modeled for 2032? What about the 2032 noise exposure levels?
**[40:53] Julie Kinsey:**
Thank you. While the noise contours don’t extend out to Beacon Hill, the flight tracks that were modeled do — they cover a much larger area. The regulation requires that we model at least 30,000 ft from each runway end. When you look at the maps, you could see where the various communities are, again, beyond the DNL 65.
And I do want to note that it only is for SEA. I know that Beacon Hill is also near BFI, so those flight tracks would not be represented in ours, uh, though they do have a Part 150 study going on as well. Tom, is there anything you want to add? Did that cover everything?
**[41:42] Tom Fagerstrom:**
No, I think, uh, that covers things. Uh, you know, this is where we start to talk about, uh, in the NCP phase, uh, you know, there are perhaps opportunities that we can look at, um, altitudes or, uh, departure procedures, and those items, um, that could possibly impact those outside the DNL 65 contour. So, um, this is where I’d say, you know, encourage, uh, comments to the study.
**[42:12] Julie Thacker (host):**
Thanks, Tom. And for those of you who are not able to use the Q&A chat icon because you might be joining via mobile, please submit your questions via email to P150@portseattle.org. Again, that’s P150@portseattle.org.
All right, Tom. This is, um, a related question. “I have been a resident living in Brier for 45 years. It’s been a quiet community for many years. We’re 30 to 35 miles north of SeaTac and notice substantial noise from the planes that fly this far north to make their turn, usually right over our city of Brier. Our once-quiet city has become extremely noisy. What can be done to help with the noise over my community?”
**[43:11] Tom Fagerstrom:**
Uh, thanks, Julie. Yeah, this is — this is where, uh, comments into the study team are important, uh, to help guide our analysis — potential analysis that we could do for communities further out. Uh, perhaps we can look at altitudes or, uh, the approach procedures being done up there. Uh, moving and changing aircraft flight paths and procedures is a very difficult process, and the FAA will, uh, engage in those, uh, if — if it isn’t a situation, as was said in our presentation, of moving noise from one community at the expense of another.
So, um, but there are opportunities, uh, with the NCP phase of this study to look at, uh, to do analysis further out on flight procedures as well. So again, I — I encourage folks to submit comments to our study.
**[44:15] Julie Thacker (host):**
Thanks, Tom. This one’s for Ryan. If additional residences are eligible for noise remediation or sound insulation, when will residents be able to get a sound insulation package installed?
**[44:28] Ryan McMullen:**
Uh, thanks, Julie. So, um, I believe this resident is, um, referring to the pilot program, and, um, where we are in the pilot program right now — um, we’ve recently, uh, completed, um, acoustic testing on approximately, um, 120, uh, single-family homes, uh, that are pre-1993, um, located in the current noise remedy boundary. And, uh, once we have the full results back, um, we’ll reach out to the residents that, um, tested eligible and, um, notify them about next steps.
Um, soon we’ll be reaching out, uh, to additional residents located in the, um, noise remedy boundary, uh, that are pre-1993 homes, um, about scheduling, um, potential acoustic testing, um, at their homes. Um, in terms of when these sound insulation packages, uh, will be installed, um, I don’t have, um, an exact answer right now, but, uh, we’re aiming, uh, for design to hopefully start by the end of the year and, uh, have construction start next year.
**[45:44] Tom Fagerstrom:**
And if I could just add, uh, one bit to that related to Part 150 — is that, uh, we will have, at the end of the Part 150 study, an updated noise remedy boundary, uh, based on that 2032 noise contour. Uh, and so we anticipate that the Part 150 will, uh, wrap up in 2027. And at that time we would have — if all goes to plan, we’ll have an approved Part 150, uh, document approved by the FAA — and then we can move forward at that time under that new noise remedy boundary that’s updated with this study. Uh, so sometime after 2027 would be when that new boundary would be put into place. Just, uh, tying this back to the Part 150, in case that’s what the question was. Thanks.
**[46:38] Julie Thacker (host):**
Thank you, Tom. Okay, for Julie Kinsey — why are questions in this webinar not counting as official comments?
**[46:51] Julie Kinsey:**
Thank you, Julie. These meetings are set up to emulate an in-person meeting, and the workshops that we held were in an open-house format so that we could answer questions. And that’s really what we’re doing here — to talk you through the process and hear your questions and answer them. And a lot of times that’s what the person needs — they get clarity, and then can provide a more informed comment. But there’s plenty of questions where it — it’s pretty to the point, and that’s when folks like Tom encourage you to please submit your comments in writing if there’s things that you want us to look at specifically — [unclear in source: “raising light pads”] or other recommendations to consider in the NCP, different things. We want to hear your official comments, but we really want to make sure that we have an opportunity for you to ask questions, get answers, and then submit formal comments through one of the official platforms. Thank you.
**[47:59] Julie Thacker (host):**
Thank you, Julie.
Okay. All right — for Mike. “Is there any hope for Vashon Island? We seem to have been ignored by the FAA during the pandemic — noise calmed down. Since then, it is just awful in several places on the island. Is there anything that can be done to help us?”
**[48:24] Mike Arnold:**
Vashon Island is an area that we are looking at. Um, a number of years ago the FAA implemented a new procedure that, uh, included GPS technology. Um, that technology — the goal of it was to create flight paths that minimized, um, overflights in certain areas of the community surrounding, uh, SEA. Um, the challenge is that that same technology also concentrated the overflights, uh, where they transit, uh, the island of Vashon. And so one of the things that we’ll be looking at in the next phase of the study is whether there are opportunities to maybe relieve some of that concentration that’s going on but still accomplish the goals of noise reduction in areas, um, around the community. So, it’s definitely something that’s, um, on the study team’s radar, and that we will be looking at in the next phase of the study.
**[49:30] Julie Thacker (host):**
Thanks, Mike. Okay, this next question is for Marco. Marco, will a translated transcript of this meeting be made available on the website?
**[49:47] Marco Milanese:**
Thanks, Julie. So the port’s goal is to make all of its meetings as accessible as possible, and we have offered language support services for all the public meetings that we have held for this Part 150. So yes, if there is a request to provide, uh, a translation of today’s broadcast, please write the port, uh, at the Part 150 email address, P150@portseattle.org, and we can certainly see what we can do to provide that, uh, translated material for whoever makes the request.
**[50:25] Julie Thacker (host):**
Thank you, Marco. Okay, this next question is for Ryan. “In the new study and sound insulation program, are there limitations on multifamily owner-occupied residences being eligible for sound insulation packages? I live in a 55-plus community under the flight path, and I understand we are not currently eligible for sound insulation support. I think we are in the 65-plus decibel area.”
**[51:06] Ryan McMullen:**
Um, yeah, thanks, Julie. So, um, right now we just have the forecasted conditions modeled out, um, for, uh, 2032, and that’s the 65 DNL, uh, noise contour. Um, we [clears throat] don’t have the noise remedy boundary, um, defined yet. Um, that’ll come at a later date. Uh, once we have, um, the noise remedy boundary, uh, defined, um, the community may be eligible, uh, pending, um, acoustic testing, if they are located in the new noise remedy boundary. Um, it also, um, depends on whether we have grant funding, um, and we have to, um, apply for that, uh, to the FAA and get that funding, uh, to complete, uh, the acoustic installation as well. Thanks, Ryan.
**[52:12] Julie Thacker (host):**
Okay, this question is for you again, Mike. “With the relentless amount of jets that pass over every one to two minutes at times, I have been unable to enjoy my deck during the summer, as the noise is constant and stressful. Is there a plan to address the flight patterns to have less impact on cities to the north such as Kenmore, Bothell, Lynnwood, and others?”
**[52:45] Mike Arnold:**
Yes. So, as the airport has gotten busier during busy periods, um, aircraft are lined up further and further out from the airport, uh, as they transition into the airport. Uh, so aircraft are flying, as time has gone on, maybe in some areas where they haven’t, um, at least not quite as intently, um, flown in the past. Uh, the noise compatibility program gives us an opportunity to take a look at what’s going on in those areas around the airport and look at opportunities — as Tom referenced earlier — perhaps adjusting altitudes or other types of [snorts] strategies for reducing, uh, noise impacts. So we’re really just transitioning into that phase of the study, which will be the second phase. I do encourage you to submit that comment as a formal comment so that we capture it, um, as we transition into the noise compatibility, uh, planning phase of the study. Thank you.
**[53:49] Julie Thacker (host):**
Thank you, Mike. This question, I believe, is for you, Marco. “For those who experience cumulative noise from SeaTac and other municipal airports, train depots, and other transportation noise sources — what can they do to find some remedy? Is there some regional entity or entities who could help?”
**[54:14] Marco Milanese:**
Thanks, Julie. Unfortunately, there isn’t a regional entity that comes to mind that encompasses noise throughout the entire greater Seattle area. And so I think at this point you would need to work individually with the various airports, or, uh, through WSDOT, through their highway structure, or with cities, to deal with the individual noise issues that might be contributing to your issue. And I don’t know if anyone else from the panel would have anything to add to that.
**[54:53] Julie Thacker (host):**
I don’t see any takers. We’ll go to the next question. This one’s for Scott. Why can’t operations be relocated to other airports to reduce noise?
**[54:59] Scott Tatra:**
Thanks, Julie, for the question. Um, I think Julie Kinsey had mentioned in the presentation, or in a previous question, that the, uh, the FAA will not really consider, um, shifting noise from one community to another, um, as a measure that would be approved under Part 150. Um, the other thing I’ll add is that, um, the airlines and operators really dictate where they operate. The airport very much, uh, acts like a landlord — they’re responsible for the facilities and upkeep, and, um, doing programs like this. Um, but they don’t really control where airlines can fly. And so that’s really up to the airlines to make those decisions based on their own business models. Um, and when it comes to other operators, um, they can pick and choose where they want to operate, and we cannot restrict them.
**[56:01] Julie Thacker (host):**
Thanks, Scott. And just a reminder for our audience that our panelists are going to be speaking more slowly so that our interpreters have time to catch up.
Julie Kinsey, this question’s for you. What can we do as residents to help secure grant funding for airport noise mitigation?
**[56:24] Julie Kinsey:**
Thank you. Primarily, this is for the Port of Seattle. One of the reasons they’re conducting this noise compatibility program, or through the Part 150 study, is to get additional noise funding for approved measures. Approved measures in an NCP may be eligible for federal funding — so that’s one of the opportunities. There has been other comment in the community at large about looking at different metrics or lowering noise levels, and any funding for that would have to be, uh, congressional — from the legislature, from the federal point, because it’s federal funding. So that’s beyond the scope of the port and the study, where you would want to potentially work with your local representatives.
[unclear in source — addressed as “Column,” doesn’t match an introduced panelist; attributed below to Tom Fagerstrom based on content] Is there anything you want to add there?
**[57:24] Tom Fagerstrom (attribution uncertain — see note above):**
Well, I would just add that, um, uh, that’s, uh, the structure of this study, and, uh, staying within the constraints, uh, of this study is — is — is one of the reasons is to assure that we get that grant funding, uh, to continue into the future and fully fund our programs, uh, to the best that we can. And getting FAA funding assured is — is the way to assure that we get the most funding, uh, for these programs, program. So, I guess that’s — that’s — that’s, uh, that’s my focus, but I [clears throat] think you covered it well, Julie.
**[58:00] Speaker unclear in source audio:**
And if I could maybe add — if you are a nearby resident to this airport and you want to help, the best way you can help is by submitting your ideas and concerns related to noise. And so, seapart150.com — go to that website, or use the email address. We really want to hear from you on what you think is affecting you and your ideas on what can be done to mitigate that experience.
Thanks, everybody.
**[58:34] Julie Thacker (host):**
All right, Chris, this question’s for you. What affects noise exposure?
**[58:41] Chris Noli:**
Thanks, Julie. So there are two things — there is the size, or the overall area, and then the shape of the noise exposure. So the size, or area, of the noise exposure is dependent on the number of operations. Also included is the type of aircraft used — typically larger aircraft have a larger noise footprint and generate more noise, whereas smaller aircraft will have a smaller noise footprint. Uh, and also, for departures, aircraft that are departing or flying to destinations further away from Seattle would be carrying more fuel, and thus the aircraft is heavier, uh, and will take longer to get further away from the ground, thus creating more noise. Uh, the size is dictated — or, sorry, the shape is dictated by a number of things, including how the runways are used for arrivals and departures — uh, the flight tracks, where the flight tracks are going over the ground, and how often those flight tracks are used.
**[1:00:04] Julie Thacker (host):**
Thank you, Chris. This one’s for Ryan. What is considered a non-compatible land use?
**[1:00:14] Ryan McMullen:**
Thanks, Julie. Um, a non-compatible land use means that the sound exposure, uh, that a given land use receives is normally, uh, not compatible, uh, because the DNL exceeds the thresholds outlined, uh, in a Part 150. Um, the thresholds for determining incompatibility, uh, vary depending on the type of land use. Uh, for example, uh, for residential land uses, uh, the non-compatibility, uh, threshold is 65 DNL. Uh, but for commercial land uses, the non-compatibility threshold is 70 dB DNL, uh, where the design and construction, um, of the structures do not, uh, reduce outside noise levels, uh, by 25 dB or more.
**[1:01:13] Julie Thacker (host):**
Thanks, Ryan. This question is for Scott. Are electric engines being developed for jets which would make departures and arrivals much quieter?
**[1:01:24] Scott Tatra:**
Um, I think the answer to that is yes. Um, we’re all looking forward to, uh, electric aircraft making things a lot quieter for the environment. Uh, I think currently, uh, the technology is not there for electric aircraft to carry heavier loads. Um, there’s smaller craft being looked at for much more short-range types of flights, in and around communities, up to 60 or 100 miles, that kind of thing. But for larger commercial operations, and, um, you know, an operation like SEA, uh, we don’t expect there to be any electric aircraft coming into the fleet, uh, in the near term — certainly not within the timeframe of what Part 150 is looking at, up to 2032. So we’re not predicting any of those aircraft to come into, um, the fleet during that time period.
**[1:02:27] Julie Thacker (host):**
All right, Mike. How does the FAA’s ongoing noise policy review have an impact on this study?
**[1:02:37] Mike Arnold:**
Thank you, Julie. A few years ago, the FAA undertook an effort to review its noise policy and try to determine if it was still appropriate and reflected the community’s concerns relative to noise, uh, and annoyance around, uh, airports throughout the US. Um, they did a survey of communities around a number of airports to try to get a better understanding of what that looks like, because the FAA’s noise policy — the 65 DNL, uh, threshold, and the DNL metric, um, [snorts] — have essentially been used going back 50 years now. Um, and so, um, as 50 years had now passed, uh, the FAA determined that it was time to look at whether supplemental metrics should be considered, um, in evaluating noise, or whether the 65 DNL contour, uh, should remain the threshold of significance from a noise compatibility standpoint.
Um, the FAA, um, last year, through the 2024 FAA Reauthorization Act, um, it required — the FAA set up an ANAC, an Airport Noise Advisory Committee, with representatives of industry, communities, and others, to, uh, review and assist in reviewing, uh, that policy. Um, at this point we don’t have any real updates on where that, uh, effort stands. We know that the FAA was in the works, um, as we transitioned into the beginning of this year, uh, of setting up that committee. Um, [snorts] but at this point in time, uh, the timeline is — is not clear. Um, we anticipate that it’s unlikely to see noise policy changes, uh, during the course of this study. So we will likely, um, continue to move forward, uh, with the FAA’s decision-making process and review process based on its current noise policy. And I’d be happy to open it up to any of the other panelists to comment.
**[1:05:02] Julie Thacker (host):**
[No takers.] All right, we’ll go on to the next question then. This one’s for Chris. In reference to your previous answer, by “more noise” for heavy aircraft, do you mean louder or longer?
**[1:05:16] Chris Noli:**
Uh, I generally mean louder and longer. So, if the aircraft is heavier, they’re going to be closer to the ground for a longer period of time. So that noise exposure is going to be greater, or louder.
**[1:05:31] Julie Thacker (host):**
Thanks, Chris. And here’s another one for you. “I [clears throat] understand you are projecting that there will be no turboprop planes using SeaTac airport in 2032. Can you explain this change? Are turboprop planes louder or quieter than most of the passenger jets that use the runway?”
**[1:05:54] Chris Noli:**
Sure. And I would ask Tom to fact-check me on the names here, but, uh, I believe most of Horizon’s, uh, turboprops were phased out around 2022, or just shortly before — and that is where most of those turboprops are comprised of. In terms of whether they’re louder than commercial jets — they are not louder, but they also have a distinct noise profile, um, because of their fan blades being exposed oftentimes, and thus could be construed as a little bit more annoying, but they are not louder.
**[1:06:35] Tom Fagerstrom:**
Yeah. And just to build on what, uh, Chris said — uh, yeah, it was Horizon Air that phased out all of their Q400 turboprop aircraft around that timeframe. Uh, there’s just a — a couple of very small users of those, uh, aircraft today, and the trend is that those aircraft are being replaced by regional jets, and that’s what’s being, uh, what was put into the model. And it should be noted that, um, uh, Q400 turboprop aircraft, uh, as with all propeller aircraft, are turned early after departure. Uh, so, uh, that is a different, uh, profile with regard to the, uh, established flight procedures, and they were being replaced by regional jets, which do fly the — the straight-in and straight-out, uh, noise abatement procedures like all other jets do. So, uh, those factors do, uh, cause that, uh, noise contour to change a bit.
**[1:07:39] Julie Thacker (host):**
Thanks, Tom. So, we’re down to just a few questions. I’m just reminding you that once all study-related questions have been answered, we’re going to wrap up this workshop. So, if you have a question that you’d like to ask and have answered, please submit it now to ensure that we have the opportunity to answer it.
So, Mike, this question is for you. The questioner says: “At this time, SeaTac is not using the CDA approach method when aircraft land. This technique has been adopted by many airports, such as LAX. This technique reduces noise and carbon footprint. Is there any specific reason why we are not adopting this technique, and how, or who, can we reach out to, to encourage the adoption of this landing method?”
**[1:08:40] Mike Arnold:**
Yeah, CDA approaches, or continuous descent approaches, uh, are often also called optimized profile descents. Uh, uh, and what it does is it puts an aircraft in a, um, reduced-angle, th— uh, throttle position, where it’s — it’s more gliding, uh, into an airport from a higher altitude. Um, the challenge is when you sequence aircraft that are making these types of approaches with different arrival streams, and being able to time the aircraft so that they’re hitting the correct locations — the exact locations — at the ideal timeframe. Um, so as technology continues to advance, um, we are seeing more and more of these procedures get published, um, and the FAA is becoming more and more attuned to using them. Um, and I think, you know, CDA approaches are definitely something we will be considering as part of the next phase of the study, in the noise compatibility program phase. So Tom, I see you’re off mute — I don’t know if you want to add to that.
**[1:09:45] Tom Fagerstrom:**
Yeah, thanks, Mike. Uh, I will just say that, uh, continuous descent approaches are partially implemented for a portion of arrivals into our airport. Uh, those arrivals on the west side of the airport are using a continuous descent approach, at least, uh, partially, uh, and then they are turned towards their final approaches to the runways in the traditional way. Uh, and so overall, this is a question, uh, to be posed to the FAA specifically. Uh, they have, uh, rolled out these types of approaches, uh, in various stages at various airports over the years. Uh, and that can certainly be a question that we can pose to the FAA, as part of this process, of what are their future plans for, uh, continuous descent approaches, uh, more of those, uh, satellite-based approaches, to the airport.
**[1:10:48] Julie Thacker (host):**
Thanks, Tom. All right, just one more question. Um, this one’s for Julie Kinsey. How long will the Part 150 study take?
**[1:10:59] Julie Kinsey:**
Thank you, Julie. Part 150 studies typically take about three to four years, depending on the level of analysis for the NCP phase in particular. We’re over a year into this study. As we mentioned previously, the NEM phase is wrapping up — that’s the noise exposure map — and we’ll be, uh, publishing the report likely later this year, and then it would get sent to the FAA for their determination.
And during this time we’re also transitioning into the NCP phase, and that’s when we’re going to be looking at all the recommendations and comments that have been submitted, and screening them, and modeling, and determining what can be included in the NCP. We’re anticipating that we’ll have a public meeting for those towards the end of next year, and the study would be wrapped up in 2027. Thank you.
**[1:12:01] Julie Thacker (host):**
All right. Well, thank you, everybody. At this time, we don’t have any more, uh, questions, so we’re going to be wrapping up.
And just want to again thank everybody for joining us for today’s virtual workshop. We hope you found the information helpful and informative. If you feel your comment or question wasn’t answered in its entirety, please again submit a formal comment, and we’ll consider and address your concern in the final NEM report. Again, follow the instructions on the screen or visit the port study website at seapart150.com to submit your formal comments.
Additionally, today’s meeting materials will be posted on the Port of Seattle’s Part 150 website. Thanks again for joining us — we really appreciate your participation.
This is a machine-generated transcript generated on the fly by Google/Youtube/AI. Accuracy totally not guaranteed. Provided only as a convenience and to help people with disabilities. Caveat lector!