TagNEPA(463)

A presentation slide titled 'How to Serve Market Demand at SEA' outlining Seattle-Tacoma International Airport's three-phase capacity strategy: the Capital Program serving 46.9M passengers in 2017, SAMP Near-Term Projects targeting 56M passengers by 2032 (including 19 additional gates and a second terminal), and a SAMP Long-Term Vision for demand beyond 2032 involving FAA airfield studies and environmental review.

This chart from a Sea-Tac Airport (SEA) planning document shows the correlation between Central Puget Sound regional population growth and total passenger volumes from 2010 through 2035, including the COVID-19 pandemic dip. Key data points include 46.9 million passengers and 4.06 million population in 2017, with projections of 60.2 million passengers and 4.8 million population by 2030, and 67.2 million passengers and 5.1 million population by 2035 following NTPs Completion.

An infographic chronicling annual passenger volume at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA) from its 1949 opening (130,600 passengers) through 2023 (50.8 million passengers), highlighting milestones such as the 1962 Seattle World's Fair surge, the 2019 record of 51.8 million passengers, and the COVID-19 pandemic drop to 20 million in 2020. A historic aerial photograph of the original terminal building appears at the top.

Title slide for a Port of Seattle commission presentation dated October 22, 2024, agenda Item No. 11a supp, covering Sustainable Airport Master Plan Near-Term Projects at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.

This is page 3 of 3 of a Port of Seattle Commission Agenda briefing document dated October 22, 2024, covering the Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP) Near-Term Projects Environmental Review. It lists a Quarter 4 2025 milestone for the SEPA EIS Final Document and Decision, one attachment (presentation slides), and six previous Commission actions or briefings on SAMP dating from February 2018 through June 2023.

Page 2 of 3 from Commission Agenda Briefing Item No. 11a, dated October 22, 2024, summarizing the Draft Environmental Assessment for Sea-Tac Airport (SEA) surface transportation impacts and outlining the public comment schedule, including the Draft NEPA EA released October 21, 2024 with a 45-day comment period closing December 5, 2024, and public meetings in SeaTac, Burien, and Des Moines on November 13, 14, and 16.

A Port of Seattle Commission Agenda Memorandum (Item 11a, meeting date October 22, 2024), authored by Sarah Cox and Steve Rybolt of Aviation Environment and Sustainability and addressed to Executive Director Stephen P. Metruck, summarizing the Draft NEPA Environmental Assessment findings for the Sustainable Airport Master Plan Near-Term Projects and announcing a 45-day public comment period from October 21 to December 5, 2024.

Slide 43 from a Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA) environmental impact document compares three alternatives — No Action, Proposed Action, and Hybrid Terminal Option — across resource categories including Historical/Archaeological/Cultural Resources, Land Use, and Natural Resources and Energy Supply. The FAA determined no adverse effects to historical or cultural resources under the Proposed Action, and noted that SEA would have adequate jet fuel storage under Alternatives 2 and 3 but inadequate storage under the No Action alternative.

Slide 44 from a Sea-Tac Airport (SEA) Environmental Impact Statement presentation comparing noise and visual effects impacts across three alternatives: No Action, Proposed Action, and Hybrid Terminal Option. Key findings indicate that while the 65 DNL noise contour would be larger under the Proposed Action in 2032 and 2037, no significant noise impacts would occur, and noise contours shrink by 2037 due to quieter Boeing 737 MAX aircraft.

Slide 42 from a Sea-Tac Airport environmental review presentation comparing impacts across three alternatives (No Action, Proposed Action, and Hybrid Terminal Option) for resource categories including Air Quality, Climate, Coastal Resources, and Department of Transportation Act Section 4(f). The slide indicates that criteria pollutant and GHG emissions would increase under Alternatives 2 and 3 compared to No Action but are not considered significant, and that Coastal Resources and Section 4(f) resources would not be adversely affected.