Guest Opinion | Open Letter to Port, DOWL

— from Janet Alderton —

Dear Orcas Port Commissioners and DOWL,

Thank-you for this opportunity to comment on the Preferred Alternative to improve our Eastsound airport safety for both aircraft and the general public. I have been learning quite a lot during the public process. My priorities are not only safety, but also wise use of public funds at both the local and federal levels. Negative impacts to our environment and increasing noise impacts for Eastsound residents and visitors also concern me.

Firstly, I would like to support Clark Cundy’s proposal to address the Mount Baker Road safety issue. It seems to me that this solution could be implemented much more quickly and at a much lower cost than the relocation of Mount Baker Road. This sounds like a win-win for all:

“Using modern tech for aircraft detection and location on departure and landing (maybe the current GPS landing system could be used), place two lights on the side of the road (no barricades, bells or whistles), for westbound and eastbound traffic. The plane is only actually over Mt. Baker road for a couple seconds so normal traffic you get a green light, a plane on approach or takeoff you get a yellow light, and when an aircraft passes a certain point, a few seconds say 10 you get a red light. Traffic stops momentarily then goes again…Safety violation solved. This type of system was offered in the original set of options but wasn’t mentioned in the ‘preferred’ plan.”

I agree that runway width and taxiway separation must be addressed for the Cessna 208 aircraft. According to Clark Cundy, the Cessna 208 do not need a longer runway. Creating a runway longer than Eastsound’s existing one will attract larger and noisier aircraft.

Clark Cundy says, “We were told the main impetus for all these safety changes are the Cessna 208’s wingspan that our providers now use. Cessna 208 aircraft need wider runways not longer than Eastsound Airport already has, Cessna 208’s wingspan is 2 feet wider than a BI airport is supposed to handle. Cessna 208’s can take off in 2,055 ft and land in 1,625 ft according to the spec sheet from Textron. Eastsound airport is already 2,901…Plenty of existing runway. And they weigh in at maximum takeoff weight at 8000 lbs. So the added runway length is not needed to support our provider’s aircraft or fix any of the safety requirements. So why the added length in the runway? I asked this question at the meeting and we went off topic in short order.”

I agree with Clark Cundy’s statement:

“Since the safety violations were the supposed reason for the new airport Master Plan I’m for keeping the existing runway length at 2901 and removing the blast zones that are being used as added runway length…That will maintain all the service we are now used to having by providers like UPS and Kenmore Air, but help keep the larger faster aircraft out. Personally I want nothing to do with a Federal Customs or Boarder Patrol point here on Orcas. There are two already around locally, Friday Harbor and Bellingham. There are strings with that set up as there were strings with the FAA grants and loans that KORS had starting accepting way in the past. Now the FAA is sitting in the catbird seat telling the Port of Orcas its either take more money and do what we want or repay everything we’ve given you in the past, which isn’t really a financial option. So mitigate their financial power by just fixing the safety violations and not building a terminal and runway to support Customs and Boarder Patrol.”

I completely agree with Clark Cundy that our community, not the FAA, should be responsible for choosing the scale/capacity of our airport.

Clark stated, “In the DOWL presentation at Orcas Center there were statistics based on speculation of future airport traffic deplanements, etc., to help justify the new airport expansion. The FAA shouldn’t be the entity dictating to the community how much airport capacity Orcas Island should endure over time. The Island community should be the entity that dictates it’s own airport destiny. In the DOWL power point presentation there are a lot of statistics on growth into the future. The community in the capacity planning of how much and what kind of air traffic it wants should take precedent over FAA speculation and not be subservient to them. The community should be able to pick the level of capacity that the airport should run at and what islanders are willing to accept as the safety risks, noise, air pollution, et. al, that goes along with that. In the meantime all the business interests involved should be able to continue to make money.

I oppose creating a US Customs port of entry at Eastsound airport to facilitate aircraft and boat traffic.

Clark Cundy states, “In the June airport Master Plan F meeting at the Fire Station there was a sort of off the cuff remark about potentially creating a US Customs port of entry at Eastsound airport to facilitate aircraft and boat traffic. In a Jan. 19, 2018 newspaper article the Port suggested exactly that. DOWL didn’t cover any of that aspect of the new expansion at the last meeting I went to. Does the island community want a permanent Federal presence on the island all the time? And what does that bring with it. One thing it brings with it are US Customs Aircraft. Here’s the link: www.cbp.gov/border-security/air-sea/aircraft-and-marine-vessels. So the new bigger BII faster aircraft, Cessna Citation, Beechcraft King Air Series 200 (as long as the crew kept the max takeoff weight under 12,500 lbs)., two drones plus Border Patrol Boats probably in Brandt’s Landing.

Personally I don’t want a US Customs or ancillary ICE or Border Patrol port on Orcas. Nothing has been said as to whom the tenants will be in the new terminal building or what that intent is or was. I do think the Port/DOWL need to be as clear with the community as possible on the net effect of having Customs and Boarder Patrol point located on Orcas. As far as the Island Community goes I think we as Islanders at least need to know the answer to the US Customs entry port question or who the new tenants might be, so we go in with our eyes open.”

I am concerned about the costs of reconfiguring the docks at Brandt’s Landing as indicated in Figure 6.

Clark Cundy states, “Figure 6. Brandt’s landing is heavily impacted by the plan with regard to property acquisition, and at the last public meeting DOWL stated that some agreement might be attained with the owners of the landing to facilitate the taxiway and dig more ditch to move the docks. The Airport commissioners have evidently signed a document stating and stored by the state that they will not use Eminent Domain for the airport property acquisitions. They should post a copy. For me if the landowners are willing then that’s a zero sum deal. The Brandt landing business will remain with new dock space. Again, all of this is for FAA spec’s of a two foot wingspan violation supposedly and creating a taxiway to the north end of the runway with the runway built to spec. I haven’t heard any figures as to how much all of this will cost the US taxpayers but it will be pretty substantial. And keep in mind that the Customs and Boarder Patrol Boats will probably be moored there with any security and fencing that goes along with that too.”