— by Tim Blanchard —
To the Commissioners of the Port of Orcas:
Please consider the following comments for the Port of Orcas Airport Master Plan:
GENERAL
1. I am a full-time resident of Orcas Island who has owned property here since 2000 and who has lived here for more than ten years.
2. I use the airport frequently, both for business and pleasure connections on Kenmore and San Juan Airlines.
3. I depend on UPS (Aeronautical Services) and FedEx for business correspondence and for items that can only be purchased off-island.
4. To date, we have been fortunate enough not to have required air evacuation for ourselves, our family or guests, but subscribe to both services and consider their availability critically important to island residents, one of the many trade-offs we make in choosing to live on a rural island rather than in an urban area.
5. I have concerns about both the public communications used by the Port in this process, and about many of the changes that are being proposed for your consideration.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION/PARTICIPATION ISSUES
I believe that this project is yet another example of the provision of the minimum mandated public process by government entities in our community. I understand that some Commissioners are puzzled why so few people showed up for the first two meetings. Islanders, while very concerned about protecting their community, are also busy living life and frequently working hard just making ends meet. A person cannot be multiple places at the same time and must triage the demands of competing public processes. Accordingly, government entities should take steps to advise people as early as possible of the potential consequences of a proposal – not simply that a periodic planning process is happening and not in fine-print legal notices. In this case, the notices should have stressed the potential for the proposed expansion of the airport to have dramatic impacts on the community. Identifying controversial issues clearly and early is important to avoiding the problem of misinformation flying about and panicked rhetoric that we frequently experience in San Juan County.
CONCERNS REGARDING THE CHANGES UNDER CONSIDERATION
I believe that the “safety” argument for rerouting Mount Baker Road is misplaced and over-weighted. A fundamental aspect of rural life and rural character is recognizing and promoting individual responsibility and enabling people to take safety precautions that they see fit based on their evaluation of the risks. It is impossible to eliminate all risk, and people who choose to live in remote and/or rural areas must accept additional risks for the opportunity to do so. We have all concluded that additional risk is reasonable to get to live where we do. In our community, we have invested in first responder capacity far superior to the capacity in most other rural areas of our size. That is an appropriate response to addressing some of the additional risk inherent in rural living. Adopting proposed safety measures that require damaging the character of our community is not reasonable. Accordingly, in my opinion, adding instrument approach systems was reasonable, but re-routing Mt. Baker Road as proposed, or any changes requiring traffic signals, should be a non-starter.
The current situation at Mount Baker Road is a perfect example of this concept in practice. If anyone believes that driving through the RPZ on Mount Baker Road is too dangerous, alternative routes are already available to them. The School District could decide to re-route its bus if it determined that to be an appropriate safety precaution. Indeed, just as we expect of every pilot, we expect every driver, bicyclist, pedestrian, or equestrian on the public way to maintain appropriate situational awareness and exercise appropriate caution based on the circumstances they encounter. People should recognize that they are the crossing flight path and that there may be low flying aircraft at Mount Baker Road and are free and expected to proceed with appropriate caution in the circumstances.
New is not always better. Plans for a shiny new airport terminal might be consistent with the vision of airport planners and consultants, but fail to consider the important role the current terminal and its surroundings, even including the “sardine can” motif of the Aeronautical Services building, play in introducing visitors to our rural community. For many visitors, arriving at the Eastsound Airport is their first contact with our rural island community and those first impressions set the tone and influence visitors’ expectations for their visit. Most visitors to Orcas are seeking to get out of town and away from the city to relax for a while. Arrival at the Eastsound terminal lets them know that Orcas is not just another suburban place with its cookie-cutter commuter airport or perhaps a theme-park rendition of a rural community, but the real thing—organic, yet functional.
Please do not disregard the value of first impressions. Indeed, how many airport terminals are things that people, young and old alike, talk about when they get back to the city and tell their friends about “what they did last summer.” Arriving at the Eastsound Airport — viewing the airport during the downwind, on approach, and pulling up to the terminal– is one of those Orcas experiences that people talk about years later (like walking out to Indian Island at low tide, seeing an eagle from Mountain Lake, or driving by Cascade Lake). First impressions matter and our rural character is what brings visitors and new neighbors to Orcas. Please take care to protect these experiences for future generations of islanders and their visitors.
Design Elements/Results That Should Be Non-Starters
1. Any changes (physical or operating policy/procedure) that would result in a curtailment of Kenmore service to Orcas Island. Many islanders, including full-time islanders, depend on Kenmore to enable us to live and work in the community. Nothing should be done to CURTAIL the operation of Caravans and similar planes.
2. Any changes (physical or operating policy/procedure) that would result in a limitation of air evacuation services for our community. It seems unlikely that the existing airfield cannot support those functions.
3. Any changes (physical or operating policy/procedure) that would result in a significant curtailment of UPS (Aeronautical Services) or FedEx services to our community.
4. Any changes that will require changes in ground transportation away from the airport that are “to be determined in the future.” If there are to be impacts on ground transportation, they should be addressed now. It is difficult to overstate the impact roads and road design have on a place. The feel of a place can be change instantly from rural to urban by changes in a road, and changes in roads are very difficult to reverse.
5. Any re-routing of Mount Baker Road to North Beach Road, especially via Enchanted Forest Road. Changes in Enchanted Forest or North Beach Roads to accommodate additional traffic from Mount Baker Road would irreparably harm the rural character of Eastsound and Orcas. Such changes would also result in a net increase in safety-risks in the affected areas due to the increased risk of traffic accidents, which, of course, are far more likely to occur than an aircraft-motor vehicle accident on current Mount Baker Road south of the runway.
6. Any change that could result in requiring a traffic signal on Orcas. We must avoid creating a situation that would require the urbanization of our community and traffic lights unavoidably change the character of an intersection and impose an urban contrivance interrupting the organic flow of a place. It might not be possible to avoid traffic signals forever, but we should do our best to design projects to avoid the need for them. (Please remember number 4, above, when considering this item.)
Thank you for considering these comments.
-Tim, thank you for your words of balance and perspective.
Below are my 2-cents to add to your reminder that trees fit into bigger forests:
To the Port of Orcas:
All of this back-and-forth has revealed where we might want to go from here; but first, the mission, followed by some “apparent” facts, followed by a possible redirect and modified course of action:
The Mission—
The orcas island airport exists to:
-safely serve the needs of its residents;
-do no irreparable harm to the island; and
-provide additional benefits that fit within the above parameters.
The facts (as we know them):
—The port of orcas petitioned and received federal dollars to build the airport to where it is today, which has reached its maximum usefulness for the island’s needs in keeping with the island’s rural character, essential defining qualities and in reaching its maximum sustainable ecological footprint;
—However, to maintain our same level of dependency on federal dollars to keep the airport at its current level and configuration, we’re told that we must now exceed the needs of the island, exceed its ecologically sustainable footprint, and damage its rural character and essential defining qualities;
The Redirect (a suggestions for where we might go from here):
Modify Alternative 1, as follows:
—No additional capital construction that significantly alters the airport’s current footprint;
—Maintain the current infrastructure so as to be legally compliant;
—Take a microscope and surgical knife to the budget to cut without losing essential services, Kenmore, FedEx, etc.
—Explore outside funding sources that do not come with strings attached as in requiring the airport to harm its host, the island.
—Employ time and energy in developing a climb down from our federal ladder of funding that does not trigger penalties all so that the Port does not exceed the island’s needs in maintaining a serviceable airport that does no further harm to the island’s ecology or character (assuming as fact that federal dollars will not be forthcoming if we do not do x,y & z);
—Explore self-financing options by developing a new budget that calls for additional sources of airport revenue, taxes and other benign sources of funding.
This is at least the start of a re-think and a reminder of how and where the airport fits in our “island” lives. The airport is a piece not the whole. It need do no harm to the body, that is, orcas island.
Well said Tim and Chris!
Tim,
It was a pleasure to read your guest editorial and I whole heartily agree with your synopsis. Thank you for your clear and concise depiction of what’s important to sustaining a healthy balance life on Orcas.
Thank you Tim and Chris for the information. I am grateful that someone is encouraging restraint in development on Orcas Island. Bigger is not necessarily better and in this case it would seem unnecessary.
Tim; this was so well thought and put, and I believe that it reflects the wishes, logic, and opinions of the majority of people on Orcas who know anything about this Master Plan/proposal for expansion.
My desire, in the month since I found out about all of this, has been to interest and involve as many people as possible in what’s going on so they don’t get blindsided by yet another major and far-reaching change that pays no attention or respect to how we want to grow, what our carrying capacity is, and our wish to be in harmony with our rural characteristics and our community.
My hope was that the Port would not only work with the greater community’s citizens and take our ideas and suggestions seriously, AND to also do the outreach (TOGETHER, with the community) to the corporations, people, and entities that would consider our situation here, geographically, geologically, and all that we stand to lose – not gain – with expansion – and help us craft a way to go forward without expansion so that it’s a win-win for everyone.
According to Bea Von Tobel’s article on the grant monies, if I understood it correctly, we are only about $8 million in the red – that’s IF we had to pay back ALL the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants; which I think we won’t. I’m not sure how many loans and state grants the Port has already taken; their financials should clear that up and answer the community’s questions. I believe that many of us would be willing to put some money in or raise money to pay those grants back if need be.
I’m not so sure that the FAA really knows our situation here – our narrow sea-level land mass UGA and all the densities surrounding the airport, and our community’s desire to respect these limitations while also considering safety. If we educate them about this, they may be willing to work with us on this, and not force a B-2 airport design on us. But the Port has to be willing! If not, it’s up to we the citizens to draw attention to our issues here and get the attention of entities who would help us consider options that fit our situation.
What we need is to explore every possibile solution put forth by every person that comes up with one – not just the Port manager. Port commissioners, and DOWL consulting; although we appreciate the time and work (and $$$!) put in so far because it gives us a place from which to start true dialogue. In order to go about this intelligently and with the community’s participation and approval, our good ideas need to be considered and implemented – they’re much cheaper than the “take the crack-laced-candy grant money” from state and federal coffers, which comes with conditions that could make this place into the stuff of nightmares, not fantasies.
If the Port doesn’t realize that collaboration with the Public is important, then we need to convince them – and until they work with us for the best possible outcome of Alternative 1, Public Trust will decline. If it means dropping the AIP grants and paying back whatever, then so be it!
We are a community of creative, resourceful people. I hope we don’t give up, and that we use that creativity and collaboration to do some good, rather than be told that this is not a democratic process – which insults not only our intelligence, but our hearts and our love for this place.
Bravo, Chris Graham!
Thank you, B Sadie Bailey.
Sincerely, i’ve read your comments (e.g., your OI comments on Oct 20, 2017 re: “Gimme Shelter” by Joe Symons) for some time and see the consistent way you (and other notables in our community – too many to note here) urge residents to protect our fragile and irreplaceable island; that if we respect its indispensable eco-system, which allows us all to exist and prosper in healthy communal ways, we’ll improve the chances of this experiment called humanity — that it may continue now and for future generations to come.
We all should all take a few minutes to realize how few are the things one can say are factually, scientifically and objectively INDISPENSABLE in this world and in your personal lives.
What can each of us, despite party or politics, absolutely not live without?:
Our eco-system, the sub-strata, the wetlands, and the microbial life seemingly insignificant and not visible to the naked eye but truly the foundation of OUR LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM— (all science, not fuzzy, subjective, feel-good talk).
Let’s continue to use our larger brains to reconcile our larger human footprint and habitat with our immediate local environment and the island’s indispensable eco-system.
It starts right here in our own proverbial backyards.
—being the balanced and rational stewards we’re called to be—
Sadie–Yes! And note that the $7-8 million was spread across several decades; it’s not exactly a scary annual number.