SeaTac Noise recently released the following important announcement about the SAMP Environmental Assessment on their informational website SeaTacNoise.info :
The Port of Seattle has confirmed that the Final Decision on the Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP) Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) will be released on October 31, 2025. The decision will arrive almost one year to the day after the original publication of the Draft EA in October 2024.
SAMP—short for Sustainable (in the Port’s opinion) Airport Master Plan—outlines the work needed to keep growth going at the airport. Fitting 50% more passengers into current facilities is not feasible, so the Port plans to build more terminals, expand the cargo service area, and much more. As noted on the SeaTac Noise site:
The SAMP Near-Term Projects Draft EA, released in October 2024, is a required step under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It evaluates potential environmental impacts of the 31 proposed projects, including terminal development, airfield improvements, and increased capacity. But it considers them as a single unit and with far less rigor than environmental reviews from previous expansions.
What happens next?
Once the Final EA is released, a 60-day public review period will follow. This is the window for any legal challenge of those findings. If there is no appeal, the FAA will then either issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or require a more comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).The Port remains confident it will be able to proceed to publish a draft State (SEPA) EIS during the first quarter of 2026. They promise to provide a 30-day notice before doing so.
There are several challenges in making sense of the Port’s plans. The first is understanding the context of how the SAMP process has been working. For background, these pages are helpful starting points:
The second challenge is that staff of nearby cities and community volunteers turn over. Some cities have airport advisory groups, but city staff and elected council members have many competing interests. Some appear to believe that voluntary agreements from the Port are the best we can get—and that they will last forever.
Nope. Fifty percent more flight operations in the same crowded airspace will mean more noise, more chance of accidents, more congestion, and more air pollution. Try putting rice through a funnel—at some point, it’s gridlock. Only so many flights can go through SeaTac airspace at peak hours, especially with additional flights from Renton, Boeing Field, and, to a lesser extent, Paine Field and McChord, all affecting capacity.
When the Port releases a document on Halloween with a 60-day window, that means comments will be due at the end of the year—right when people are busy with Thanksgiving and Christmas.
The group SeaTac Noise suggests preparing ahead of time. Look over their site, read the background articles, and be ready this fall and early winter to submit comments about the harms to the environment, health, and local economics.
One Response
They left out or purposely ignored a few key things in their draft analysis like the king county health study that found a much higher than expected number of people in this area die early, die more often and have more illness. They also forgot the EPA said in 1996 they’d have to do an air quality analysis before building another terminal. They didn’t want to do that. The airport is exempt from most noise and air pollution regulations but if they were a smokestack they would have been shut down in 1993. If they were a boombox or car stereo they would be cited. But FAA will say they’re fine even though Sea-Tac is the largest source of pollutants in the state.