Template revised January 10, 2019.
COMMISSION
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
Item No.
8j
ACTION ITEM
Date of Meeting
March 24, 2026
DATE : March 1, 2026
TO: Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director
FROM: Sarah Cox, Director, Aviation Environment and Sustainability
Steve Rybolt, Sr. Environmental Program Manager, Aviation Environment and
Sustainability
SUBJECT: Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP) Near-Term Projects Environmental Review
– Additional Contract Authorization
Amount of this request:
$1,000,000
Total estimated project cost:
$9,750,000
ACTION REQUESTED
Request Commission authorization for the Executive Director to execute an amendment to the
existing Sustainable Airport Master Plan Environmental Review professional services agreement
with Landrum and Brown for an increase of $1,000,000 for a total contract amount not to exceed
$9,750,000.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Additional contract authorization is being requested to complete environmental review
documentation required under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). This authorization will
support a continued robust outreach and engagement program, additional analyses beyond what
was conducted during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Assessment
(EA), that have occurred over duration of the environmental review. This request will also include
contingency funds if additional analyses or work is required following the issuance of the Draft
SEPA Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Funding has already been approved in the 2026
Aviation Expense Budget; this request is to authorize the additional project budget to amend the
existing contract.
JUSTIFICATION
The estimated cost of the SAMP NTP environmental review has exceeded the contract value and
estimated level of effort. There are three primary reasons for the increased cost of analyses,
documentation, and project management of the SAMP NTP environmental review: (1) a higher
level of outreach and engagement in NEPA and SEPA, (2) additional analyses being conducted as
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 8j Page 2 of 7
Meeting Date: March 24, 2026
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
a part of the Draft SEPA EIS, and (3) overall administrative contract cost escalations. Additional
information on each of these areas is noted below.
Staff anticipate the $1,000,000 in additional contract authorization will be sufficient to complete
the remaining SAMP NTP environmental review Draft SEPA EIS documentation. This funding will
support a continued robust outreach and engagement program, additional analyses beyond what
was conducted during the NEPA EA, and contract cost escalations that have occurred over the
duration of the environmental reviews. The environmental review will be done under the existing
contract, led by Landrum & Brown, a consultancy firm specializing in environmental review.
• Outreach and Engagement. During the NEPA EA, the Port of Seattle developed and
produced a robust outreach and engagement program. This included, but is not limited
to, materials and translations provided in multiple languages, outreach to airport-area
stakeholders and public meetings in different locations, targeted engagement with BIPOC
and historically underrepresented communities with an emphasis in South King County,
and outreach to public sector and regional leaders. The original estimated budget
developed in 2016 was far exceeded and it is planned to conduct a similar, if not larger,
outreach and engagement program for the SEPA EIS.
• Updated and additional technical analysis. The Draft SEPA EIS will update and conduct
additional analyses beyond what was conducted in the NEPA EA. This will include, but is
not limited to, air quality, noise, climate, environmental justice, and cumulative impacts.
This includes analyses identified in Scoping that was not anticipated to be in the NEPA EA,
analyses that were removed from the Final NEPA EA, and additional analyses that were
identified during the NEPA EA public comment period. These additional analyses will
ensure that once the Draft SEPA EIS is released, it will have the most updated information
for the public to review. These efforts require additional documentation, specialized
expertise, and coordination with appropriate governmental agencies.
• Administrative contract cost increases. The contract provides a provision that provides
annual consumer price index adjustments (i.e., CPI-U). This adjustment applies to all
positions on the contract, including small suppliers and contractors (i.e., SCS). Due to the
duration of the contract and the annual increases in CPI-U, additional unforeseen costs
occurred.
Diversity in Contracting
The SAMP Environmental Review personal services agreement has a Small Contractors and
Suppliers (SCS) utilization requirement of seven percent. To date, the personal services
agreement exceeds this requirement with an approximately 10% SCS utilization rate. The seven
percent SCS utilization requirement will continue through the duration of the service agreement.
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 8j Page 3 of 7
Meeting Date: March 24, 2026
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
DETAILS
This contract supports the Port’s ongoing efforts to fulfill regulatory obligations (i.e., SEPA) for
decisions about airport growth and development. Consulting services made available through
this contract allow the Port to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of future airport
growth and development identified within the SAMP NTP and mitigate those impacts as
appropriate. Upon completion of NEPA and SEPA, the Port may begin construction after
Commission authorization.
Environmental review of the SAMP NTP will continue to be led by Landrum & Brown, a
consultancy firm specializing in aviation environmental reviews. Landrum & Brown will also
continue to be supported by a variety of subconsultants, many of which are locally and/or
nationally recognized experts within their respective disciplines.
Scope of Work
These additional funds would be used to complete work that falls within the scope of the existing
contract.
The SAMP NTP Environmental Review scope includes the following primary tasks:
• Project Management – Manage coordinated and effective relationships with the project
team.
• Scope of Work Development, Project Schedule, and Project Budget – Prepare and
document detailed scope of work, schedule, and project budget for NEPA and SEPA.
• SEPA Analysis – Existing Conditions/Affected Environment – Identify existing
environmental conditions for all elements of the environment under SEPA.
• Future Environmental Consequences With and Without the Project – Evaluate all
elements of the environment under SEPA for future conditions associated with the
Alternative(s) and No Action Alternative.
• Prepare Draft Environmental Documentation – Prepare comprehensive interim
documents that will be made available for agency and public comment.
• Public and Agency Coordination – Conduct on-going coordination with appropriate
stakeholders during the preparation of the draft and final environmental documents. This
also includes public hearing(s) during the agency and public comment period.
• Prepare Final Environmental Documentation – Review agency and public comments on
the draft environmental document and revise the draft document to prepare the final
environmental documents.
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 8j Page 4 of 7
Meeting Date: March 24, 2026
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
Schedule
Staff anticipate the following schedule:
Q2 2026 SEPA EIS draft document released for agency and public review
SEPA EIS agency and public review complete
Q4 2026 SEPA EIS final document
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED
Alternative 1 – Do not add funds to the SAMP Environmental Review service agreement, but
instead, procure new consultant services. The work described in this memo is required to
advance the SAMP NTP environmental review but could be conducted by a consultancy firm(s)
specializing in aviation environmental reviews and not currently under contract with the Port.
Cost Implications: This alternative would likely cost more and take longer to complete; the
potential increase in cost and delays to the schedule cannot be reasonably quantified and would
be significant considering the delay to the entire SAMP NTP.
Pros:
(1) Competition among qualified consultants for additional work.
Cons:
(1) Procuring a consultancy firm specializing in airport environmental reviews other than
Landrum & Brown, to conduct the work described in the details section of this memo,
would likely cost more and take longer due to the lack of knowledge of the
environmental issues and projects that has, by comparison, been gained by the SAMP
Environmental Review consultant team through their work on the SAMP NTP
environmental review to date. In addition, the procurement process itself would take
time to execute.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 2 – Do not add funds to the SAMP Environmental Review service agreement and use
Port staff to complete the work.
Cost Implications: No additional funds added to the contract – potential $1,000,000 savings in
Aviation expense fund. Other cost increases cannot be reasonably quantified, due to probable
delay in SAMP NTP, but should be considered significant.
Pros:
(1) Short term cost savings
Cons:
(1) Port staff lacks the breadth of specialized skills required within NEPA and SEPA. Using
Port staff to conduct the work described in the details section of this memo would likely
take longer due to the lack of knowledge of the environmental issues and projects that
has, by comparison, been gained by the SAMP Environmental Review consultant team
through their work on the SAMP NTP environmental review to date. In addition, the
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 8j Page 5 of 7
Meeting Date: March 24, 2026
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
Port lacks the staff resources to conduct the work – in particular, within the Aviation
Environment and Sustainability department.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 3 – Add the requested contract funds to the existing SAMP contract.
Cost Implications: $0
Pros:
(1) This is the most cost-effective way to complete the work described in the details section
of this memo due to the knowledge of the environmental issues and projects that has
been gained by the SAMP Environmental Review consultant team through their work on
the SAMP NTP environmental review to date. This money has already been approved in
the 2026 Aviation Expense Budget; this request is to authorize the additional project
budget to amend the existing contract.
Cons:
(1) $0
This is the recommended alternative.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Expense
Total
AUTHORIZATION
Previous authorization (11/10/2015)
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
Previous authorization (2/25/2021)
$3,400,000
$3,400,000
Previous authorization (6/27/2023)
$2,350,000
$2,350,000
Current request for authorization
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
Total authorizations, including this request
$9,750,000
$9,750,000
Remaining amount to be authorized
$0
$0
Annual Budget Status and Source of Funds
Approximately $7,500,000 has been spent on the SAMP NTP environmental review to date and
the remaining funds within the current project budget of $1,050,000 are allocated to tasks in
progress, leaving $250,000 in unallocated funds. The 2026 operating budget includes $550,000
for SAMP NTP environmental review activities. As these are operating costs, the funding source
will be the Airport Development Fund.
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND
The primary purpose of SAMP is to identify facility improvements required to satisfy demand
over the 20-year planning horizon and to balance capacity in all key functional areas to the fixed
capacity of the airfield. To that end, the SAMP started with an unconstrained, 20-year forecast of
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 8j Page 6 of 7
Meeting Date: March 24, 2026
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
cargo and passenger activity which was used to determine peak hour facility requirements based
on demand derived from the movement of aircraft, passengers, bags, vehicles and freight.
Alternatives for facilities development to satisfy demand were then developed and assessed,
resulting in a phased capital program to deliver needed capacity through the 20-year planning
horizon.
For planning purposes, the SAMP assumes the airport’s current three-runway system and close-
in airspace configuration will remain in place. With the airport’s small footprint and significant
physical constraints, redevelopment at Sea-Tac requires expensive relocation of existing facilities
and limited options for expansion.
Work to evaluate alternatives for project phasing and to assess airside capacity has included
extensive airside modeling in consultation with FAA specialists and has determined that existing
constraints require a two-step approach to advance the SAMP.
The first step in SAMP planning identified a suite of projects required to meet current and
expected near-term future demand, known as the Near-Term Projects (NTP). The NTP consists of
approximately 31 projects, including 19 gates connected to a second terminal, that are being
evaluated within the SAMP NTP environmental review. Although the SAMP planning process
identified projects beyond the NTP, known as the Long-Term Vision (LTV), these projects are not
ripe for environmental review at this time, as they require further study and are not reasonably
foreseeable.
The second step in SAMP planning focused on understanding the constraints for airside facilities,
which include runway and taxiway utilization, airfield configuration, gate availability, and
airspace management as conducted by FAA. The Port will work with the FAA to conduct an
airfield/airspace study which will determine the long-term capacity of the airfield and inform or
reaffirm the SAMP LTV projects. Similar to the LTV, additional environmental review is required
before any airfield/airspace projects could are implemented.
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST
(1) Presentation slides
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS
October 22, 2025 – Commission Briefing: “Sustainable Airport Master Plan Near-Term
Projects Environmental Review - Draft NEPA Environmental Assessment Findings and
Public Comment Period”
June 27, 2023 – Commission Action: “Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP) Near-Term
Projects Environmental Review – Update and Budget Increase”
February 25, 2020 – Commission Action: “Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP) Near-Term
Projects (NTP) Environmental Review Briefing and Request for Additional Funds”
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 8j Page 7 of 7
Meeting Date: March 24, 2026
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
January 28, 2020 – Commission Briefing: “Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP) Near-Term
Projects (NTP) Environmental Review Briefing – Forecast and Schedule Update”
February 26, 2019 – Commission Briefing: “Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP) Near-
Term Projects (NTP) Environmental Review Briefing – Scoping Report”
May 8, 2018 – Commission Briefing: “Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP) Planning and
Environmental Update”
February 13, 2018 - Commission Briefing: "Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP) Planning
Update"