Not deep. But a few good insights
Airport Interim Aviation Director Arif Ghouse was joined by SAMP Environment Manager Steve Rybolt and Landrum & Brown’s Sarah Potter for a one hour and fifteen minute Q&A on the FAA’s recent Sustainable Airport Master Plan Record Of Decision. Both have been working on the project for many years.
SAMP Record of Decision and supporting documents
SAMP Explainer
The short presentation was followed by audience questions via chat. These webinars usually feature curt answers, and this was no exception.
Cut to the chase: as we’ve been saying, there are no mitigations (beyond minor traffic impacts) on offer. All stated flatly that the results were the FAA’s decision and based on federal law, which prevents doing anything more.
Despite the public desire for compassion and empathy, the tone is understandable. This is an ongoing legal process after all.
And to a certain extent we agree. The FAA process was intentionally designed by Congress to thwart almost every airport community concern. In answer to one question, for example, Ms. Potter quoted language from USC Title 49 which makes the airport open for business 24-7-365.
Mr. Rybolt said more than once that the Port of Seattle Commission was aware of the negative public comments to the ROD. He provided few details on the upcoming SEPA process beyond saying it would be more expansive. He mentioned they would be adding back a cumulative impacts category – which went unconsidered by the FAA.
The Port also mentioned that the ROD was even more harsh due to a series of recent Executive Orders from the President. The Commission’s feelings about the Trump administration are well-known, but this was not mere politics. That new language removed consideration of Environmental Justice — one of the only categories open to much interpretation under federal law. We applaud them for saying so and hope it signals that they will take it more into consideration during SEPA.
However, we have our doubts. In coming months, there will be at least two State laws being proposed specifically to address that last piece — environmental justice in permitting large projects. Last year the Port opposed both unconditionally. Very shortly they will have a second chance to express their sincere interest in addressing community interest via the SAMP. After all, in the state process, they will act as lead agency. There will be no one else to applaud or blame for that outcome.
We will be offering a detailed review of the Q&A during our next episode of the Airport Communities Podcast.
Transcript
machine-generatedModerator:This is not an opportunity for public comment. Rather, this is an opportunity for those of you in the audience to ask questions and we will answer as many questions as we can. If you would like to ask a question, please use the chat button that’s at the bottom of your screen right there in the middle and you will be directed to the place where you can ask a question.
One of the things that you probably noticed when you came in, but we want to stress is that this webinar is being recorded. At the end of this webinar, we will make the recording available at sampntpenvironmentalreview.org. And I will repeat that at the end of our time together tonight.
The other thing you probably noticed when you came in is that everyone is muted for tonight’s webinar. This gives the presenters an opportunity to speak to you and to share information about the FAA’s most recent NEPA document. We are scheduling tonight’s webinar for 90 minutes. As I said, after the port staff that you’ll meet in a moment share the information, we will get to as many questions as we can during the Q&A.
If you are phoning in and you’re not part of the Zoom link, please know that you can send your question to SAMP@portseattle.org. Again, that’s S as in Sam, A, M as in Mary, P as in Paul at portseattle.org.
And I will just clarify that at the bottom of your screen you’ll see a Q&A button and that is where you click to ask a question. So with that, I’d like to ask our presenters to introduce themselves. I’m going to call first on Arif Ghouse.
Arif Ghouse: Yes. Good evening, Arif Ghouse, the Aviation Interim Managing Director at Seattle Tacoma International Airport. Thank you, Steve.
Steve Rybolt: Good evening. My name is Steve Rybolt, Senior Environmental Program Manager at the Port of Seattle SeaTac International Airport. I am the port’s project manager for the Sustainable Airport Master Plan Near-Term Projects Environmental Review.
Moderator: Thanks, Steve. And finally, Sarah.
Sarah Potter: Good evening. Sarah Potter with Landrum & Brown and we are the consultant that assisted the FAA and the port in preparing the NEPA documentation.
Moderator: Great. Thank you Steve. One thing that I do want to note to everyone who is with us tonight is that the record of decision that we just received really marks the next phase of the work that we will be doing and that is into the State Environmental Policy Act or SEPA environmental review. The port will be the lead agency for that review and there will be many opportunities for community engagement as the port moves through this process. We are really excited to be at this particular point in time for this. And with that, Steve, I’m going to turn it over to Arif Ghouse and we will be waiting for your questions. Thank you.
Arif Ghouse: Thank you and good evening everyone again. I’m Arif Ghouse, Aviation Interim Managing Director at SEA airport. I want to thank all of you for joining us tonight for an update on the status of the Sustainable Airport Master Plan Near-Term Projects, which we refer to as SAMP NTP. Over 100 of you have registered for tonight’s event which is yet again another sign of how important the conversation is around the future of our airport. The development and environmental review of the SAMP NTP has been almost a decade in the works at this point and we have much more to do before there is a final decision on a path forward. So our goal this evening is to make sure you understand what the SAMP NTP are, where they came from, what they propose to accomplish, and what the next steps are. Next slide please.
To begin with the headline, the FAA completed its federal environmental review through the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA. They released their final environmental assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact FONSI Record of Decision on September 26th of this year, which found that the 31 SAMP NTP would not have a significant environmental impact once all the required mitigation has been done. Now this conclusion may be surprising to members of our community who are concerned about aircraft noise and emissions, and one of the key points of this presentation is to help everyone understand what the NTP looked at and how the FAA came to this conclusion. Just as important, we will talk about how a NEPA environmental review is only one step in the process and the port will now take the lead on conducting an environmental review using the State Environmental Policy Act or SEPA. But before we do that, I want to make sure you understand how we got here and why. Next slide, please.
So for reference, this chart on the left side is the population of our region in millions. On the bottom scale is the timeline in years. And on the right hand side you have a scale of the number of passengers, total passengers passing through the airport on an annual basis in millions. In the year 2010, SEA airport served approximately 31 million annual passengers. In the year 2019, SEA served around 52 million passengers, 31 to 52 in just nine years. There are several reasons for this significant increase, but the most tangible one is the economic and population growth of the Puget Sound region. The more people who live here and do business here, the more that people want to fly in and out for business, tourism, leisure, and to see family and friends.
As you can see from this chart, air travel demand and regional growth have a clear relationship. And importantly, we project that this relationship will continue in the future as increased growth drives increased demand for the next decade. Next slide, please.
However, while we keep seeing increased demand for air travel, SEA airport is the most constrained major airport in the country, surrounded on all sides by cities and highways. We can’t expand further which means that we have to accommodate all future growth on our existing footprint. And let me be clear, under federal law we as a port cannot deny air service. And so barring the development of another regional airport or a change in air travel demand, we have to prepare to accommodate projected future air travel within our existing footprint. As you have seen over the past decade, what that means for our current airport is increasing congestion and declining customer experience while people wait in traffic, in long security lines, and in crowded hold rooms, or even less pleasant, getting on and off the airplanes from a hot stand because there are no available gates. Next slide please.
Just to demonstrate how constrained we are at SEA, here is the Atlanta airport. And then here is SEA. Obviously, we’re significantly smaller, but even more impressive is the fact that Atlanta is only processing twice as many passengers at way more than twice the size, which means that SEA is actually pretty efficient in its small but mighty footprint.
Of course, one person’s efficiency is another person’s terrible airport experience. Our goal is not only to make SEA work, but also to make it comfortable for travelers, which means that we do not want to be squeezing more and more air service into our congested and constrained facility. Without additional investments, SEA would see increasingly worse conditions, more delays, longer lines, more congestion, not only at the airport itself, but also more traffic on the roadways in nearby cities and more planes circling overhead waiting for their chance to land, which will lead to even extra aircraft emissions and noise. Next slide, please.
And so we started planning, looking at dozens of different options for ways that we could design or renovate our passenger and gate facilities to meet air travel demand in an acceptable way. It was a very involved process and we worked hard to identify the best, most efficient and most sustainable option. What you see here are the different layouts that we looked at to address the passenger terminal needs. Next slide.
The result is the 31 projects that we are proposing which include a second standalone terminal processor and 19 additional gates. We believe that this proposal works best to accommodate growing air travel demand at the airport and also updates our facilities to meet operational needs. The new terminal is necessary not just because of the 19 gates, but also because it allows the airport to add new roadways, more parking, additional curbside, more TSA lanes, more dining and retailing, all the things that will allow this airport to continue to work when it reaches 56 million passengers annually or more. Next slide, please.
Of course, the SAMP NTP are more than just a terminal. These key projects span the footprint of the airport from off-site cargo to the north to an expansion of the fuel farm in the south. In addition to these three, you can see at the bottom of the slide some of the most impactful projects in the plan, including a new ground transportation center on the bottom left to better connect the light rail stop to the terminal as well as the elevated guideway shown here as a dotted black line that will connect the main terminal, the new terminal, and the rental car facility.
Once the planning work for these projects was completed, we turned our attention to the environmental review. So with that, let me turn things over to Steve Rybolt, our Senior Environmental Program Manager who led the port’s effort with the FAA on the NEPA process.
Steve Rybolt: Thank you, Arif. And thank you again to everyone for the opportunity to speak to the Federal Aviation Administration’s environmental review and the upcoming work on the State Environmental Policy Act and next steps. I’m going to start with an overview of the environmental review process. The purpose of an environmental review is to assess potential impacts of a proposed project or program. Related to the Sustainable Airport Master Plan, the FAA assessed the 31 near-term projects. For this assessment, the Federal Aviation Administration analyzed the required resource categories under its NEPA regulations and special purpose laws. The 31 projects all were evaluated for potential impacts related to air quality, biological resources, land use, historical resources, hazardous materials, and more. If impacts were identified, the analysis evaluated the extent of those impacts and if required, identified ways to avoid, minimize and mitigate those impacts.
As mentioned previously, the FAA is the lead agency for the NEPA process with the port as the project sponsor. However, for the SEPA process, the port will be the lead agency. The port has identified that it will be conducting a SEPA Environmental Impact Statement.
One of the first steps in NEPA is to identify the purpose and need of the projects. The NEPA documentation identified five primary purposes and needs. Specifically: accommodate 56 million annual passengers at an optimal level of service; accommodate projected cargo demand; ensure airfield infrastructure meets FAA airport design standards; enhance the efficiency of the overall taxiway layout; and meet the projected fuel storage demand, including space for sustainable aviation fuels.
As mentioned, the growth in the regional economy and the population coupled with the lack of another large commercial airport in the region means that SEA is the main receptacle for increased Puget Sound commercial air travel. This slide shows the anticipated growth of passengers and operations at SEA in 2032 and 2037 with and without the near-term projects. 2032 is the year the near-term projects are anticipated to be completed or substantially complete.
For the purposes of the environmental review, we also look five years beyond the opening year. It’s important to note that with or without the near-term projects, passengers and operations will continue to increase. Airlines will find a way to put another person on a plane, upgrade their schedules. These numbers are very important to the environmental review. They are the basis for the analysis and how potential impacts are identified. Because passenger and operational volumes will continue to grow with or without the near-term projects, the difference between future passengers and operational volumes is minor. This was one reason why significant noise and air quality impacts were not identified in the environmental review.
The environmental assessment evaluated three alternatives. These alternatives were derived from planning, the environmental review itself, and comments received during NEPA and SEPA scoping. The three alternatives were: a no action scenario or if we don’t build the 31 near-term projects; the proposed action which are the 31 near-term projects; and there was also a hybrid terminal option that was identified through the scoping process. The hybrid terminal option connects the existing D Concourse to the proposed north gates terminal. All three of these alternatives were fully evaluated within the environmental assessment with the proposed action being the alternative that best meets the current and future needs at SEA.
The draft NEPA EA was released by the FAA on October 21st, 2024. All the resource categories identified in the slides were analyzed in the draft environmental assessment including cumulative impacts. Surface transportation was the only resource category that identified significant impacts that would require mitigation. While other less significant impacts were identified, they were not identified as significant because they were below regulatory standards or the port has programs in place that minimized these impacts.
The release of the draft environmental assessment initiated the public comment period. The FAA extended the public comment period twice as a result of a request from the port, community interest, and the Thanksgiving holiday. The robust public outreach and engagement led by the port included four open houses with over 230 individuals participating, 42 community presentations conducted by port staff, and many other approaches to ensure broad outreach to the community from 10,000 plus mailers to publishing documents in multiple languages.
As a result of the outreach, there were 591 comment letters received with 2,554 unique comments. For example, one letter could have included 10 unique comments. On this slide are the general themes that were identified, ranging from a request to complete a NEPA EIS, request for additional analyses, and build a new airport. Every comment received was responded to and these responses can be found in Appendix O of the final environmental assessment. This document is available online at the project’s website sampntpenvironmentalreview.org as well as the libraries within the Highline cities.
The FAA issued the final environmental assessment on September 26th. The comments received did not warrant any changes to the analysis between the draft and final environmental assessment and because no significant impacts were identified that could not be mitigated, the FAA did not conduct a NEPA EIS. However, in the final environmental assessment, there were changes in three areas. Climate, environmental justice, and cumulative impacts were removed as a result of the regulatory changes by the Trump administration.
In the draft environmental assessment, all three of these topics underwent a robust analysis. None of these resource categories identified significant impacts. Even though these were removed from the final environmental assessment, the information is still available in the draft environmental assessment that can be found on the project’s web page.
Along with the issuance of the final environmental assessment, the Federal Aviation Administration issued a Finding of No Significant Impact or FONSI and the Record of Decision or ROD. The FONSI ROD identified 18 conditions that SEA would need to adhere to if the near-term projects were to move forward. These were identified in five different categories.
Of the 18 conditions, 16 are conditions that are common practices at SEA. I’ll dive into surface transportation in the next slide and provide an overview of the other resource categories and their conditions.
For historical, architectural, archaeological, and cultural resources, the FAA specified the following conditions in the ROD: For select near-term projects, there must be an archaeological monitor on site during ground disturbing activities and there must be a plan in place if anything is found.
For biological resources, the FAA specified the following conditions in the ROD: Implement strategies outlined in the 2024 Land Stewardship Plan, specifically the tree replacement policy; conduct nest surveys prior to construction of any of the near-term projects; and follow all FAA advisory circulars related to construction practices and hazardous wildlife attractants.
For water resources specific to storm water, the FAA specified the following conditions in the ROD: Improve and expand the storm water drainage system known as the SDS and industrial wastewater system known as the IWS to support the near-term projects. We must also track pollutant generating impervious surfaces and report that to the FAA. And we must include the near-term projects within SEA’s storm water pollution prevention plan known as the SWPPP. And we must continue to use best management practices or BMPs to limit impacts during construction of all the near-term projects.
For water resources specific to wetlands: When possible, avoid and minimize wetland impacts and obtain all applicable permits. Lastly, no vehicles or material storage can occur in wetland areas or sensitive areas.
Specific to hazardous materials, pollution prevention, and solid waste, we must monitor contaminant levels in groundwater during and following the completion of the construction of the near-term projects. And for all near-term projects, we must handle, store, and dispose of hazardous materials in accordance with applicable federal, state, and or local regulations.
I’ll now go over surface transportation requirements. The one resource category where impacts were identified that could be mitigated was surface transportation. The FONSI ROD requires SEA to provide intersection improvements or support to 26 different intersections. This is approximately $40 million in improvements within the community. This includes 10 intersections where physical improvements will be made and 16 intersections where a proportional payment will be paid to account for the incremental increase of impacts as a result of the near-term projects.
This slide identifies all the intersections where physical improvements would be required. This includes roundabouts, new signals, reconfigured lanes, and non-motorized transportation amenities.
The FAA’s NEPA findings is one step in a longer process. Individuals have 60 days from September 26 to appeal the final environmental assessment and the FONSI ROD. In the meantime, the port has begun the additional analyses as part of the SEPA process with a goal to open public comment on the SEPA draft EIS in late quarter 1 of 2026.
SEPA includes additional analyses that are more refined than what was done in NEPA and focuses on requirements that are within the state of Washington. The SEPA EIS will also include categories that the Trump administration had removed: climate, environmental justice, and cumulative impacts.
As with NEPA, the port will lean into outreach and engagement throughout the SEPA process. We will have a robust outreach and engagement program, providing advanced notices of the release of the SEPA draft environmental impact statement. We’ll translate materials, hold a variety of stakeholder meetings, and reach out to underrepresented communities.
And finally, here is our timeline to complete the environmental review work. Ultimately, of course, it is the purview of the Port of Seattle commissioners to determine whether and when to build any of these near-term projects, but the NEPA and SEPA will help inform their decision along with a variety of other factors. And now we are happy to answer any questions that have been submitted to the chat. Feel free to share those questions now if you haven’t already. I will now turn it back to Charlotte Gags.
Q&A Session
Moderator: Thank you, Steve. Our first question is for Arif Ghouse. Arif, one of our audience members asked: “The Port of Seattle Commission is on record fully supporting the development of more regional airport capacity and this is one of our top legislative items during the state legislative session. However, the state has yet to identify the site for future airport development and so SEA is focused on accommodating regional air travel demand.” Can you give us a little more information about that?
Arif Ghouse: Yeah, I’m not quite sure what the question is there except what we are focused on. Our commission is focused on finding additional capacity in the region, right? So they’ve committed to working with our regional partners to look at it as a systems issue and that’s a top priority for us at the port for the legislature in Olympia to try and bring on some additional capacity for us in the region. As I said in my presentation at the beginning, we as a port cannot deny air service. So we have to accommodate when they want to come in. And so until we have that additional capacity in the region that we as a port are supporting to get, we here at SEA are focused on meeting the demand until we can get that up and running.
Moderator: Thank you Arif. Steve, this next question is for you. Can you explain to us why the FAA decided to conduct an environmental assessment as opposed to an environmental impact statement or EIS?
Steve Rybolt: Yeah, thanks Charlotte. The FAA decided to do an environmental assessment for the SAMP near-term projects environmental review. Generally a NEPA environmental impact statement is done when there are significant impacts that are identified that cannot be mitigated. In this scenario, the FAA started with a NEPA environmental assessment and as a result of that process identified that there were no significant impacts that could not be mitigated. Thus, they did not do an environmental impact statement. Sarah, is there anything you want to add?
Sarah Potter: No, I think you covered it perfectly.
Moderator: Let me get to our next question, which is: Will takeoff and landing requirements of the noise abatement policy continue to be honored or will planes be allowed to leave the corridor earlier? Steve, I think that question is for you.
Steve Rybolt: Yeah, I could take that to start. The NEPA environmental review is based on the review of the 31 near-term projects based on the current airspace constraints and configuration. Any changes to the airspace would need to be done by the FAA in a decision and it would require a formal evaluation and that’s likely something that would happen into the future. Sarah, anything to add on that?
Sarah Potter: [shaking head no]
Moderator: Okay, one more question here. How is the general study area determined and how are impacts measured that go beyond the immediate airport area?
Steve Rybolt: Yeah, Sarah, do you want to start with that question and I can fill in whatever you don’t cover?
Sarah Potter: Sure. So in the NEPA process, we identified a general study area and it represented where reasonably foreseeable direct or indirect impacts may occur as a result of the proposed action or the alternatives and it was bounded loosely by roads and other landmarks within the area. There were also categories that went beyond the general study area such as biological resources, air quality and noise analysis. So the air quality used the mixing height. The biological used a boundary that was a little beyond the general study area and then the noise used the 65 DNL noise contour.
Steve Rybolt: I don’t have anything to add. Thanks Sarah.
Moderator: Okay, that’s great. So next question for NEPA and SEPA, can you tell us how other modes are studied as you approach airport travel? When we talk about modes, are we talking about other forms of transportation beyond airplanes?
Steve Rybolt: We are. I think this questioner wanted to know more about high-speed rail, etc., other things that are considered for a region.
Yeah, really good question. The high-speed rail question was actually identified as part of the response to comments in Appendix O. Generally high-speed rail can be a viable option when you have another site that’s 400 to 500 miles away. For SeaTac airport, Boise and Spokane are the two closest options in order for any type of high-speed rail to be considered. However, most of the routes are beyond that. So thus in the NEPA context, it was not considered as a viable alternative for NEPA. For SEPA, we’ll also look at—in addition to, we did a very robust transportation analysis looking at impacts on roadways and intersections. We will also consider alternative forms of vehicles as options to minimize impacts to nearby roads as part of the SEPA process as well. Sarah, anything you want to add?
Sarah Potter: I was just going to refer to the environmental assessment. Chapter 2 has additional information along with Appendix B has additional information related to that.
Moderator: Okay, great. Steve, you ready for the next question?
Steve Rybolt: Yeah.
Moderator: Okay. Someone has asked: Please provide precise USC CFR which requires airports including SEA to handle future demand.
Steve Rybolt: I don’t have that off the top of my head and I would defer to Arif on that but I’m sure that’s something we could get back to.
Arif Ghouse: Yeah, happy to get back to the people posing that question. I will refer to the general responses in Appendix O. General response 7C does discuss this particular USC which is USC section 47107A paragraph A1 which states that reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical activities including commercial aeronautical activities offering services to the public at the airport, which is why the port has to keep the airport open for all commercial service.
Moderator: Okay, thank you. We’ll head to the next question which is: Please describe the different roles played by the port, ESA and Landrum & Brown in developing the SAMP and its relationship with Part 150, which for those who don’t know is the noise study for the airport.
Steve Rybolt: Yeah, I can start with that. So, Landrum & Brown was the prime project manager and the subject matter expert for the Sustainable Airport Master Plan Near-Term Projects Environmental Review. Sarah and her team conducted the noise analysis. They used the baseline information of 2022 for the Part 150. That information, the baseline data is the same information that is being used for the Part 150. That data was supplied to ESA which is the prime consultant for the Part 150 team and they are acting independently in regards to how that data is being used. So that’s the foundational data. Sarah, is there anything you want to add?
Sarah Potter: No, I think you covered it. Thank you.
Moderator: Okay, next question. I think Steve, you’ll certainly want to start off for this one. Can you highlight some of the major projects out of the 31 total projects and when will they actually start construction? Who determines when the projects get to start construction?
Steve Rybolt: Yeah, thanks. Great question. First and foremost, both NEPA and SEPA both need to be fully complete in order for the near-term projects to be completed. We’ve started the SEPA analysis and we’re hopeful that that will be completed by the end of 2026. Once both NEPA and SEPA are completed, the commission as I’ve identified has to approve the near-term projects to move forward and that begins with design and then leads to construction. Likely the first projects that could be constructed will be essentially the realignment of the airport expressway and that will take a couple years of design and so the likelihood of the shovel in the ground would probably be 2028 at the earliest. However, there are other projects that could start before that. We have blast pads which are FAA requirements that need to be built. So we could see shovels hitting the ground as soon as NEPA and SEPA are complete but at this point in time we need to further initiate design before we can start. So shovels in the ground as soon as probably around 2028 and then beyond.
Moderator: Great. Thank you. Okay. Next one is: In lieu of climate considerations, how about dealing with inclement weather?
Steve Rybolt: Yeah, I can start with that. Inclement weather is a consideration of climate impacts and one of the issues that we are likely to have an impact with here is the storms will get stronger and will be more frequent. And while it was removed from the NEPA consideration, we are bringing the climate analyses into SEPA and we will study that as part of our analysis within SEPA. So inclement weather and climate as a whole will be addressed as part of the SEPA process.
Moderator: Okay, next question turns to actually the SEPA process and this question is: Where will meetings be held for upcoming work for your upcoming SEPA work and engagement?
Steve Rybolt: Wonderful question and we are still working on our outreach and engagement plan as we are just wrapping up the NEPA process supporting FAA. I would anticipate at the minimum we’ll continue to have public meetings within the Highline cities.
Moderator: Great. Thank you. I do want to note for those who are calling in and don’t have access to the Zoom link, please send an email to SAMP@portseattle.org. And if you are on the Zoom link and you haven’t submitted your question yet, please do so. You can go to the Q&A button at the bottom of your screen.
Okay. So the next question that I have is: Why do the NEPA and SEPA processes include a no action alternative as you described earlier Steve? How does that address impacts from airport operations or is it only handled through building an alternative?
Steve Rybolt: So I think really why do we look at a no action alternative or a no build? Sarah, do you want to start with that and kind of how airports typically conduct environmental analyses under NEPA?
Sarah Potter: Sure. So the purpose of the no action alternative is to determine the impacts from the project itself. So once you determine what the no action scenario would be, you compare it to the proposed action scenario and look at the difference to determine impacts from the project. So even though it doesn’t always meet your purpose and need, you carry it forward in order to determine impacts.
Steve Rybolt: Thanks, Sarah.
Moderator: Anything to add to that, Steve, or are we ready for the next question?
Steve Rybolt: No, I don’t have anything to add. Let’s do the next question.
Moderator: Okay, let’s go. Will there be a separate scoping process for SEPA? If yes, what is the anticipated time frame?
Steve Rybolt: Yeah, great question. So, scoping was initially conducted jointly for both NEPA and SEPA. As a result of the scoping process that occurred jointly for both of them, it was identified that SEPA would be conducted separately and after the NEPA documentation. So at this point we received many, many comments during the scoping process. We continue to look at those and use them as well as comments we’ve received as part of the NEPA process from FAA and right now we do not anticipate to hold an additional scoping process for SEPA as that was already completed.
Moderator: Thank you. Okay. Another question on both the NEPA and SEPA which is: Why didn’t the airport run NEPA and SEPA processes concurrently?
Steve Rybolt: Great question and another result of the joint NEPA and SEPA scoping that was conducted. FAA has a very prescriptive process in how they run through NEPA and they have specific resource categories. The port has made it clear that there is additional analysis that they have interest in conducting and FAA was not open to having that within the NEPA document or in many scenarios with FAA there weren’t triggers that resulted in any additional analyses. The port is going to be doing some additional modeling for air quality, bringing in climate, environmental justice as we’ve talked about as it’s been removed from NEPA. Also looking at human health considerations, addressing or looking at ultrafine particulate matter which we know is of interest to many. So there are just different topics that FAA doesn’t necessarily look at in NEPA and we’re going to bring those into SEPA. So thus both NEPA and SEPA were split. One of the benefits of doing that is it offers more outreach and engagement and more opportunities for us to connect with the community and there will be really kind of a mirrored outreach and engagement program, public meetings, outreach and there will be a second public comment period specific to SEPA.
Moderator: Great. Thanks Steve. Okay. Next question. If the airport is near capacity now, why can’t we start design work now based on the FAA approval?
Steve Rybolt: I think I understand the question. Let me kind of restate it: why, if we’re near capacity which has been stated, why don’t we start building now? One is we cannot start construction of any of the near-term projects until both NEPA and SEPA are complete. We have the ability to consider really preliminary design at this time. The port has done a little of that for five projects but since then has not gone beyond any future design of any of the near-term projects. Right now we are focused on getting NEPA and SEPA done and we’ll look to the direction of our commission to guide us on how we’re going to implement the near-term projects.
Moderator: Great. Okay, so we have a follow-up question that’s going back to rail. The question was not intended to be specific to high-speed rail being developed, but what about the use of Amtrak to handle regional traffic?
Steve Rybolt: Yeah, so thank you for the clarification on that. As part of the SEPA analysis we will be looking at alternative modes of transportation. So we will be looking at Amtrak. I will identify that similar to, you have timing constraints and other such things and other modes of transportation don’t necessarily necessitate an ability to get someone where they need to be in the same time. So we will look at that and that’s an option now. So people have that option but that will be something we’ll look at alternative modes through SEPA.
Moderator: Thanks Steve. Next question. Are you planning on giving the public additional review time for the SEPA EIS process so that we can actually review the document, for example such as 60 or 60 plus days to review?
Steve Rybolt: At this time, the minimum requirement for review is 30 days and much of the documentation for SEPA will use the NEPA documentation. We anticipate that we will have a longer public review period. However we haven’t defined that time yet as of today. So we are really early in getting into the SEPA process as we just finished things. It will take us months to get to a point where we’re ready to release a draft EIS as we identified, likely late quarter one of 2026. In between now and then we will identify how long the public comment period will be. Regardless of how long it is, we will notify the public at least 30 days in advance of when the document will be made available. But it will be 30 days minimum. I can say that for sure.
Moderator: Thanks. Okay, next question. For a very long time, there have been considerations of a hush house and making all glide slopes consistent. Can you describe why they have never been implemented?
Steve Rybolt: I don’t have an answer for that.
Moderator: Was that part of the scope of SAMP that we considered?
Steve Rybolt: Yeah. What I can say about the ground runup enclosure or hush house as it’s also called is the Sustainable Airport Master Plan looked 5, 10, 20 years into the future. The near-term projects were those projects that were essentially within 10 years. Beyond 10 years there were a variety of suite of other projects. Those projects will require additional planning and environmental review. It will take many years to go through that. Those long-term vision projects as they were called actually identified a ground runup enclosure or hush house in the future years. So at this point in time, it’s a potential future project, but there’s a lot of planning and environmental review that will have to be done to reconsider that.
Moderator: Great. Thank you. Next question. What is the study footprint for evaluating particulate matter?
Steve Rybolt: Sarah, do you want to talk through that as you talk through the air quality side of things?
Sarah Potter: Sure. So the air quality analysis completed for the NEPA was closely coordinated with the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency and as part of that coordination we established what was the mixing height used in the analysis which was used for the particulate matter analysis and that was 3,840 feet above elevation above field elevation. And so that was the study area that we use
Steve Rybolt: Great. Steve, anything to add to that?
No, I don’t have anything to add. Thanks.
Moderator: Okay, great. We’re going to take another quick pause as we wait for some other questions to come up and as we compile those for you. So, maybe a good chance for all of our presenters to take a drink of water or just take a little bit of a break from talking.
[pause]
Okay, another question just came in. Can program management, project development documents and design for the near-term projects be started during the SEPA process?
Steve Rybolt: Yeah, great question. I’m going to step back a little bit. So under NEPA, projects are allowed to move up to approximately 25% design. This enables the environmental evaluation to help gain additional information from the projects. Under SEPA there’s no defined percentage in regards to how far a project can go. So generally you look at 30, 60 or 90% design, how detailed you get in terms of the project documents. So as a question that was brought up earlier is, you know, why haven’t we started these projects? One is our focus right now has been both NEPA and SEPA. It’s taken quite a bit of time for us to get where we are and we wanted to make sure that we didn’t get ahead of ourselves and making sure that the projects were still moving forward in the direction we needed to. But to answer the question specifically, yes, under SEPA you can advance design beyond 25%. But at this point in time the port has not gone to commission to seek design funds to do that. So again there’s only been five projects that have gone to about 15% design and those have all been shelved as we’ve completed NEPA and now going into SEPA.
Moderator: Great. Okay. Next question. Will the airport be acquiring people’s homes or properties as part of the master plan?
Steve Rybolt: No. There were three components that we identified when we went into the planning process for the Sustainable Airport Master Plan. One is that we don’t purchase or acquire any new land. There’d be no runways built. And then the third piece is that we have extensive mitigation for wetlands, natural resources that was done in and around the airport is that we do not impact those areas. So at this time there’s no intent of acquiring any homes in or around the airport as a result of the Sustainable Airport Master Plan Near-Term Projects Environmental Review.
Moderator: That is a bit of a mouthful. Okay. Just one more pause as we’re waiting. We’re still waiting on other questions to come in. So, another chance to get a drink of water.
[pause]
Well, I’m going to give my spiel one more time while we’re waiting to see if there are additional questions. If you are calling in and don’t have the Zoom link, please email your questions to SAMP, that’s S as in Sam, A, M as in Mary, P as in Paul @portseattle.org. Or if you’re in the Zoom link with us, please click on the Q&A button that should be at the bottom of your screen to submit a question.
[pause]
Okay, we do have another question that just came in. This is an additional question for the air quality question that came in a little bit earlier. For air quality, what was actually studied as part of the NEPA process?
Steve Rybolt: Yeah, I’m happy to start with that. Thanks, Charlotte. I’ll kick it over to you, Sarah. So, the FAA looked at air quality and evaluated what are known as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which are six criteria air pollutants. So nitrous oxides, sulfur oxides, particulate matter, ozone and volatile organic compounds and lead. And so those were the actual pollutants that were studied. We coordinated specifically with the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. So we drafted an air quality protocol that can be found within the appendices in the actual final environmental assessment. They reviewed that protocol and they provided concurrence to it. Once we did the analysis, we shared that analysis with the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency and then again they concurred with the results and identified that we would not exceed any of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for any of those six criteria air pollutants and that we would not move out of what’s called an attainment status. Sarah, anything to add?
Sarah Potter: No, I think you did a great job there.
Moderator: We’ll take just another quick pause as we wait for questions to come in.
[pause]
Okay. Another question just came in. Is the port spending tax dollars to increase travel to SEA?
I’m going to defer this to Arif since this is not an environmental question.
Arif Ghouse: Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Steve. Yeah, you know, the FAA strongly encourages airports to be self-sufficient and we certainly strive for that and so we don’t use public tax dollars to fund the airport. So our funding is done through user fees from aeronautical users whether they be airlines or passengers going through the airport, etc. And then also non-aeronautical revenue we generate on the airport by running businesses and also money that we like when we issue bonds and so on. So we don’t use public dollars. We don’t use public dollars to encourage new flights to come in either.
Moderator: Thank you, Arif. Waiting for additional questions to come through. Sometimes there is a lag between someone submitting it and me being able to see it. So, appreciate your patience.
Okay. How will the airport deal with growing congestion before the SAMP projects might be built?
Arif Ghouse: Do you want me to take that Steve?
Steve Rybolt: Yeah, do you want to start with that and I can fill in anything you don’t cover?
Arif Ghouse: So that’s a good question and in my presentation I also touched on the fact that right now everyone who comes through here feels it in terms of customer service, very congested, delays at times, the roads are congested, the checkpoints can be congested during peak periods and so on. So we have a program called SEA Upgrade going on right now where we’re investing money in our existing facilities to the extent we can to either improve circulation by going vertical and also enhancing some of our existing footprint to alleviate some of that immediate concern. But it doesn’t fix the long-term problem. That’s why we’re proposing the 31 projects to enhance that level as we grow and we feel that once we hit 56 million it’s a critical point where to have an acceptable level of customer service we’re proposing additional projects.
Steve Rybolt: Steve, anything to add there? Yeah, I can just add that all of those projects are required to undergo environmental review as well. They are independent in nature. So that’s why they were not part of the Sustainable Airport Master Plan. And so we do evaluate those for environmental impacts. There are non-capacity enhancing projects and as identified really trying to alleviate existing demand and congestion.
Moderator: Okay, let me check for additional questions. Okay. Here’s an interesting one. Did the EA cover how the two cargo buildings and the CRDC north of State Route 518 would be connected to the main airport?
Steve Rybolt: Yes, I can try to take that. So, let me step back a little bit. So the CRDC which is the Consolidated Resource Distribution Facility or Center is a facility that’s being proposed as part of the near-term projects. Really what that facility is is in the airports you have a variety of concessionaires, restaurants, etc. And they all have supplies and equipment, food, and more. And that space is very tight for them in the airport. And many airports are starting to have off-site storage for many of those businesses that do operate within the terminal. So what they would do is they have a central location where they can store things and then they would be essentially delivered to the airport in a secure fashion. And the question at hand is I think how was that project evaluated in terms of how the product or how things get moved to the airport and right now it’s via truck. And yes it was evaluated as part of the surface transportation analysis. So, we estimated the amount of truck trips that would occur between the CRDF and the terminal itself and identified any potential impacts related to that. So, I think that answers the question, but Sarah, anything you want to add to that at all?
Sarah Potter: No, I think you covered it.
Moderator: Great. Let me see if another question is in. Hold on. Just one minute. One more.
[pause]
Okay, one just came up. Can you provide details to the elevation that air quality was modeled? For example, when flights consistently come in at a low several mile glide, was this covered in the air quality model and in the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency attainment area?
Steve Rybolt: Sarah, do you have the ability to talk about that from NEPA perspective? Then I could talk about what we’re going to do for SEPA.
Sarah Potter: Sure. And so the aircraft model or the air quality modeling included aircraft arrivals and departures up to the 3,840 feet. And so if an aircraft took off from Seattle, it measured the air quality pollutants up to that altitude and then it started modeling it at that altitude until they landed at the airport.
Steve Rybolt: Thanks Sarah. And I can add that was what was completed under NEPA. For SEPA the port is going to take a more refined analysis for air quality and it’s known as dispersion modeling. So what that does is it takes a finer detailed approach to the specific receptors or the point sources of pollution and identifies where is pollution specifically occurring in and around the airport. So that’s one area where the port is going to move forward under SEPA to do additional analyses.
Moderator: Great. As we’re waiting for additional questions, I will just remind everyone, probably tired of hearing this, but if you need to email your question, please send it to SAMP@portseattle.org or click on the Q&A button at the bottom of your screen. We’ll take a quick pause to see if other questions come up.
[pause]
Thank you. Okay, one just popped up on my screen, so I’ll read this one out. How does the outreach you conduct in SEPA, how will it be shared with communities who provide input? Is the study area the same for both SEPA and NEPA?
Steve Rybolt: Great questions plural. So two questions in there. The second question I was asked, I’ll start with that: is the study area for SEPA going to be the same as NEPA? Right now we’re evaluating that. We are going to be using much of the NEPA documentation that was done. It was an extremely robust analysis conducted by many subject matter experts and we’ll use that and we’re working to identify do we need to change any of the current boundaries that were used as part of the NEPA documentation. So as Sarah identified there’s a general study area and then there were additional study areas for water resources, noise and air. So we will assess that as part of the SEPA process as we move forward.
The first question that was asked was when we do start to do outreach and engagement working with different communities, how will that information be shared? It’s a great question. I think we document everything that we do and a lot of why we do things as a result of the information and input that we get from communities. So, I will take that back as we develop our outreach and engagement program and see how we can ensure that we share what we’re hearing from the community so other folks can see that as well.
Moderator: Thanks, Steve. Another pause. So, we’ll see if some more questions come through.
[pause]
Let’s see. As a follow-up to the facilities north of the airport, if they use existing roads and bridges, will those be expanded?
Steve Rybolt: Yeah, again, really good question. So the surface transportation is an area where there were impacts that were identified. There are intersections located north of the airfield that will have to be expanded upon. So really it’s reconfiguration of intersections whether it be roundabout, rechannelization, etc. Right now they do not expect to widen or expand any roadways north of the airfield although intersections would be updated so that there’s a smoother flow of traffic. So there are three, there are really kind of a variety of projects located north. There are off-airport cargo facilities that would utilize existing roads. There’s the CRDF that people identified and then there’s a ground transportation holding lot and then there’s expansion of a parking facility. So at this point in time the roadways would remain the same. It would be the intersections that would potentially see updates.
Moderator: Great. Thank you. Will questions be published? Will the questions that folks are hearing tonight and that our presenters are answering, will they be published along with the recording?
Steve Rybolt: Yes, as you identified at the start, Charlotte, this is being recorded and the recording will be published at the minimum on our project website and again that’s samp-ntp-environmentalreview.org.
Moderator: Thank you. Okay, just another pause here while we wait.
[pause]
I just appreciate folks’ patience as I’m waiting for other screens to populate so I can read the questions. So give me one more.
[pause]
Okay. One more question just came in. Would the FAA’s NEPA review preclude the port from pursuing additional mitigation in SEPA?
Steve Rybolt: Really great question and I’ll start by saying we have not completed the SEPA analysis. So we don’t know the outcome of SEPA first and foremost. The other piece to consider too is that the port has a variety of options to support impacts to the community outside of an environmental review process as well. The commissioners have done such things through Part 150, the South King County Fund, etc. And so as we move forward, my first intent is to understand what the potential impacts are that we may see as a result of the SEPA analysis. That may require additional mitigation. I don’t know that at this point in time because we have not done it but the commissioners have been very eager to also look at other mechanisms to support the community in and around the airport as well.
Moderator: Great. Think we have a cover.
[pause]
Now, you know, I got through almost the whole thing without doing that. Let me reread that question. Thank you. We are receiving multiple questions about the air quality analysis and what was studied in the NEPA EA. So Steve and Sarah, I know you addressed that previously, but could you continue to discuss that?
Steve Rybolt: Yeah, absolutely. And what I want to do because there’s so much interest in this is tell folks specifically where they can go. So in the final environmental assessment, if you go to sections 3.3.1 and 4.3.1, so that’s existing conditions and environmental consequences. And then as well look at the general response to comments in Appendix O. It will in detail provide what was done for the air quality analysis. It was an extremely robust analysis. It was one of the analyses that took the longest to complete and so to do it justice I really want to direct folks to where they can find that in the document.
Sarah Potter: I will add on Steve, Appendix C as well has the entire air quality technical report.
Steve Rybolt: Yeah. So I’ll just repeat that. So, section 3.3.1, 4.3.1, Appendix C as in Charlie, and Appendix O.
Moderator: Great. Thank you. Well, those are all of the questions that have come in for us tonight. I want to thank all of the presenters who have been here answering your questions and presenting the information for us. I also just want to thank everyone who attended the webinar. We really do appreciate your interest in this program. One thing to note for folks is that the same information that you heard tonight and learned tonight will be shared with the port commissioners on October 14th, so next week.
Just a reminder to everyone that the recording of this webinar will be posted on the port’s website. Steve, I’ll ask you to give the website one more time.
Steve Rybolt: Yes. www.samp-ntp-environmentalreview.org.
Moderator: Great. Couple of other things for folks. I do want to stress we’re pleased to be moving into SEPA. As Steve and Sarah and Arif noted, this is our own state’s environmental review process and the port will be leading this process on behalf of the SAMP. And finally, just on behalf of all of us, I want to say I hope you’ll stay engaged with this process as we move forward. And we really appreciate your time with us tonight. So, thank you.
All: Thank you all. Thanks. Bye.
1This 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!