Guest Opinion: Many Port Master Plan Comments Dicounted

— from  Norris Carlson —

The Port of Orcas posted its “preferred alternative” for the Master Plan on its site last week, along with a spreadsheet documenting all public comments to date. I perused the 174 pages of public comments, and on a first pass, I would estimate that a solid 2/3 to 3/4 of the commenters stated their desire for Alternative 1 ‘no change,’ for various strongly held reasons. The Port’s “preferred alternative” is obviously counter to Alternative 1; it looks to gradually incorporate many if not all of the most extreme changes possible, many of which have met with strong public resistance.

Having yet to hear anyone articulate how the will of the community is factoring into to this decision making process, I wrote to DOWL and the Port Manager Tony Simpson to ask how those comments have been used to date, and how they intend to address the strong preference of so many in the community that is at odds with the plan they put forth. Specifically, I inquired whether all parties (DOWL, Port Manager, All Commissioners) have read all of these comments to date, how they are they being applied to the considerations around the final Master Plan, what plans there were to summarize the comments and address replies back to the public in a formal way.

I have neither read nor heard anything specific on this topic from the Port Commissioners, our elected officials. Leah Henderson (at DOWL) told me that the comments “have been considered in the preferred alternative and weighed against the FAA’s requirements,” and that they would be included in a final report.

Port Manager Tony Simpson told me that he had read all 174 pages of comments and said that the commissioners will get a summary of “the rational/constructive inputs,” and that the comments that reflect Alternative 1 (‘No Change’) “are not worth summarizing.” He said he “personally dismiss[es] the ‘Alternative 1 No Change’ comments because they run counter to the mission of the Port and its obligations to the entire community/safety/operations and existing obligations under grant assurances to the FAA.”

I inquired further to understand why the Port paid DOWL to draft and include Alternative 1 in its plans if it is in fact NOT being considered an alternative at all. Simpson explained that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires, as part of an environmental impact study, an evaluation of the “No Action Alternative,” which they would recommend “only with strong, direct impacts to endangered species, etc. that cannot be mitigated at all (like destruction of the last habitat, etc.) or at unreasonable cost.” He stated that this possibility “is not likely here, even though the environmental impacts will probably require serious mitigation.”

He also described Alternative 1 as “a regression from the last two published master plans” that “effectively signs the long term intent to close the airport” and puts the Port “in jeopardy of financial bankruptcy.” (Three points that beg to be verified.)

I would venture to say that very few of the concerned public who felt strongly enough about this issue to formally state (with or without further elaboration) their preference for Alternative 1 had any idea that the ‘no action alternative’ is in fact not an alternative, and never was. In fact, the term “Alternative” in this context is deeply and consequentially misleading, and has had the effect of muting the voices of many in our community.

If the public had been made aware all along that Alternative 1 was and is effectively NOT an option, their many expressions of legitimate opposition to the scope and direction of the plans for airport development obviously would’ve had to focus only to the options that are actually under consideration (ie, what Simpson regards as “rational/constructive inputs”).

Simpson stated that he “take[s] as genuine and worthy of assessment all comments that are specific and objectively justified when balanced against all other obligations,” and gave this explanation:

– For example, if you say, “Please don’t move Mt Baker Rd and make to the runway longer,” I dismiss it because that’s not what’s happening.  If you say, “Please don’t move Mt Baker Rd because it will hurt the Swale,” my answer is that we’ll do a better job crossing the swale in its relocated place  and restore the current wetland crossing.  If you say “don’t move Mt Baker Rd because it eliminates the truck route,” that is a false statement…any relocation would conform to truck route standards.  If you say, “moving Mt Baker road will increase traffic noise at Lavender Hollow and slow Fire/EMS response to the West portion of Mt Baker Rd,” I take that in balance with the safety implications of leaving it where it is and in consultation with the fire department, the county and noise ANALYSIS.

I am sure that all commenters, including those with opinions at odds with the Port’s proposals, would have made every attempt to express their concerns and preferences in a way that would at least be found by the Port to be “genuine and worthy of assessment.” And the Port Manager’s ability to out of hand ‘dismiss’ as irrelevant almost all of the public objections to the Port’s Master Plan would have been harder to do.