— from Port of Orcas Website —
“The Preferred Alternative is not simply a matter of selecting one of these alternatives to the
exclusion of all others. Rather, it emerges from desirable elements of the others and from
additional suggestions and input that is important to the community.”
from https://www.portoforcas.com/dev/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ORS-Alternatives-Description.pdf
Orcas Island Airport – Introduction to Development Alternatives
An airport Master Plan typically has a 20-year planning horizon. It provides the framework needed to guide future airport development that will cost -effectively satisfy aviation demand, while considering potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts.
This Master Plan for Orcas Island Airport is being prepared because the airport does not meet current design standards. Every attempt must be made to meet all applicable standards.
Improvement projects at Orcas Island Airport are initiated by the Port of Orcas, as owner, but 90 percent of eligible costs can be paid with federal funds. The FAA, acting as a responsible steward for federal tax dollars and in conformance with federal legislation requires that airports receiving federal funds comply with environmental regulations, purchasing rules, and other laws.
These obligations take the form of grant assurances to which an airport sponsor agrees. Included with the grant assurances is a requirement that airport property be used for aeronautical purposes unless non-aeronautical uses are approved by the FAA.
Runway/Taxiway Alternatives 1–4 were developed to show a range in the level of effort and cost of development for modifications to the runway, parallel taxiway, and connector taxiways.
Alternative 1 has the least development and cost, and Alternative 4 has the most. The alternatives are described below with corresponding figures for each.
The Preferred Alternative is not simply a matter of selecting one of these alternatives to the exclusion of all others. Rather, it emerges from desirable elements of the others and from additional suggestions and input that is important to the community. Implementation of the Preferred Alternative is expected to take years or decades. It is anticipated that any land acquisition needed for development of Preferred Alternative projects will be purchased over the years as property comes up for sale on the market.
Each development project being undertaken will require environmental analysis and review before design work is started. The environmental process often results in alterations to the design that are incorporated into the construction work.
• Alternative 1: No Build – Minor maintenance and management of the existing runway and
taxiways with minor use of capital projects.
o Pro
▪ No further property acquisition required.
▪ Expenditures at a maintenance-only level.
▪ No effects on roads or structures adjacent to the airfield.
o Con
▪ Does not meet FAA standard for runway width.
▪ Does not meet FAA standard for runway-parallel taxiway separation
▪ Mt. Baker Road conflicts with existing Runway 34 RPZ.
▪ Probable loss of FAA funding for future maintenance and capital projects. Possible requirement to repay FAA grant funds previously expended. Potential repercussions if current grant obligations are not met.
Alternative 2: Runway Widening and 156-foot Runway/Taxiway Separation – Widen the runway from 60 feet to 75 feet, relocate the parallel taxiway to increase separation from the runway to 156 feet.
o Pro
▪ Least amount of property acquisition required to meet an acceptable safety standard. Small parcels are needed on both sides of the north end for Runway and Taxiway Object Free Areas.
▪ Widens runway to 75 feet to meet FAA standard.
o Con
▪ Requires a Modification of Standard (MoS), which will be reviewed at least every five years, and is not guaranteed to be approved in the future.
▪ Does not meet FAA standard for runway-parallel taxiway separation.
▪ Mt. Baker Road conflicts with Runway 34 RPZ.
▪ Moderate impact to the marina, but modifications could result in enhancing the marina during the project.
Alternative 3: Runway Widening, Displaced Thresholds, and 240-foot Runway/Taxiway Separation
– Widen the runway from 60 feet to 75 feet, mark existing runway pavement to include displaced thresholds (total runway length after pavement is redesignated is 3,400 feet), and relocate the parallel taxiway to increase separation from the runway to 240 feet.
o Pro
▪ Meets current runway – parallel taxiway separation requirement.
▪ Widens runway to 75 feet.
▪ Runway length will serve 100 percent of existing fleet mix.
o Con
▪ Adds displaced thresholds to each runway end.
▪ Mt. Baker Road conflicts with Runway 34 RPZ.
▪ Significant impact to the marina, but modifications could result in enhancing the marina during the project.
Alternative 4: Runway Realignment, Displaced Thresholds, and 240-foot Runway/Taxiway Separation – Widen and rotate the runway slightly, mark existing runway pavement to include
displaced thresholds (total runway length after pavement is re-marked is 3,400 feet. This is just a marking change and does not lengthen the pavement), and relocate the parallel taxiway to increase separation from the runway to 240 feet.
o Pro
▪ Meets current runway-parallel taxiway separation requirement.
▪ Widens runway to 75 feet.
▪ Runway length will serve 100 percent of existing fleet mix and will be marked to correspond with how it is already being operationally used.
o Con
▪ Adds displaced thresholds to each runway end.
▪ Mt. Baker Road conflicts with Runway 34 RPZ.
▪ Requires improvements to the marina to maintain marina access and aintain/increase marina capacity.
These modifications could result in enhancing the marina during the project.
Alternatives were also developed for the southeast area of the airfield. Southeast Development
Alternatives 1 and 2 show different configurations for the terminal building, cargo hangar, based–aircraft hangars, parking areas, etc. These layouts are shown in Figures 5 and 6.
The Airport owns a considerable amount of property on the west side of the runway which is currently not in use. A potential layout for the construction of new hangars in this area is shown in Figure 7.
At the north end of the runway Brandts Landing Lane encroaches into the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) for Runway 16. Roads are considered an incompatible land use for the property below an RPZ, and Figure 8 shows the dimensions and location of the Runway 16 RPZ if the road were removed from the RPZ. It also shows a possible aircraft holding area at Taxiway A4 near the north end of the runway.
Any project to modify Brandts Landing Lane to eliminate the conflict with the RPZ would include improvements for marina access. These modifications could be planned to enhance the marina during the project.
Just off the south end of the runway, Mt. Baker Road encroaches into the RPZ for Runway 34.
This encroachment is an existing condition. It is not a result of any of the development alternatives
discussed, nor does it have anything to do with standards for runway or taxiway dimensional criteria.
The RPZ has been in place for many years, and Mt. Baker Road presents a serious safety issue within it due to the potential that an obstacle, such as a tall semi–trailer or a school bus, could be on the road just as an airplane full of people is on low approach to the runway.
Figure 9 shows options for relocating Mt. Baker Road outside of the RPZ. Actual design of the roadway and any necessary traffic control or flow control would be determined during the design process of the roadway.
Other options to resolve the conflict include moving the runway and its RPZ to the north, which would require property acquisition, or implementing measures to stop traffic while aircraft are on approach . Such measures could include signals and crossing guards, similar to those found at railroad crossings, which would be activated when an aircraft is on approach to the runway. Such measures have been successfully installed at other airports.
For comments or questions email orcasmasterplan@dowl.com or call Leah Henderson at (425) 869-2670.
Leah-
At what point in time did our airport fail to comply with FAA requirements for runway-parallel taxi sepration and width?
Leah,
Why are there only 4 alternatives?
Did they come from the FAA, or are they self-generated?
Could they have been crafted differently?
Will we or wont we lose FAA funding if we dont widen the runway, parallel-taxiway and alter Mt Baker road?
Do we have that in writing from the government?
Are there no exceptions/waivers? Did we
explore this?
Who said we may have to repay funds to the FAA under the “No Build” alternative 1? Is it in writing? Is it conjecture?
How have we managed for all these many years?
When did the FAA guidelines with which we are alleged not to be in compliance of take effect?
What is the cost for adequate maintenance of the airport with its current configuration?
So many more questions exist…if we really want to know what’s what here?
“This Master Plan for Orcas Island Airport is being prepared because the airport does not meet current design standards. Every attempt must be made to meet all applicable standards.”
This is a quote from the consultant, whose marching orders were to conform to FFA design standards necessary to allows the Port to get more grant money.
If the airport were unsafe as currently operated, surely the FAA would close it down or the commercial services would refuse to fly here. It would be very helpful to get some clarity. Why can’t we be grandfathered like every other code system allows?
People need to look at the maps and the disruption to property owners and the general public. The options include rerouting Mount Baker Road into a bunch of turns or even a roundabout (!) plus demolishing our terminal and building a new one and lots more hangars.
Chris raises excellent questions, and many have raised them before with no real answers. What would it cost to keep the airport as is and maintain it? Why didn’t the consultant consider that option, providing the cost analysis? What does the Port collect in revenue from taxpayers and airport users? How does it spend that money?
Chris – I’ve answered almost all of your questions but I’ll spend the time again, but I’m confident nobody will actually read or accept what I write:
Why are there only 4 alternatives? We, the Port, using DOWL, develop alternatives that run the spectrum of “no change” to “full compliance.” The alternatives are not unchangeable and I have asked for a change or addition to the SE parcel alternatives to fill in the “spectrum”
Did they come from the FAA, or are they self-generated? The FAA directs this work (a Master Plan/Airport Layout Plan) as part of participation in the Airport Improvement Program. We, the Port, using DOWL as a consultant, develop the alternatives.
Could they have been crafted differently? See above. Yes, and we have ability and are actively adjusting them.
Will we or wont we lose FAA funding if we don’t widen the runway, parallel-taxiway and alter Mt Baker road? You can’t know that until it happens, but choosing the “do nothing” alternative would be a significant reversal from our Master Plans published in 1993 and 2008. PLEASE, come look at them. You’ll see plans of similar scope and scale to what is being considered now. And the point of all that is that you are fundamentally misunderstanding what the result of this process is.
Do we have that in writing from the government? No, and clearly you don’t know how the FAA works. You get the final letter and then have to fight it. We wouldn’t get the final letter until we finalize our intent to not comply with safety standards or AIP directives. That would be our published Master Plan.
Are there no exceptions/waivers? Did we
explore this? Yes, and that was part of the presentation(s) and frequent discussions I have with people. Portions of the alternatives do not meet compliance but make some improvement. There is a process for a “Modification to Standards” and we would seek those in any alternative that doesn’t meet standards. Those are issued for 5 years and there is some risk that they would not be reissued. Estimating that “reissue risk” is difficult in dealing with a bureaucracy, but my estimate is that if we take some positive action to achieve compliance and are limited by lacking land ownership or environmental, the mod’s would be sustainable.
Who said we may have to repay funds to the FAA under the “No Build” alternative 1? Is it in writing? Is it conjecture? Based on the fact that Alternative 1 is a significant reversal from our 1993 and 2008 Master Plans and basically conveys the message “The Port of Orcas has no interest in improving our airport or meeting standards” which is a violation of our prior grant agreements, there is strong likelihood the FAA would remove us from the program and seek repayment of at least the land purchases and possibly all of our grants from the preceding 20 years (about $8M)
How have we managed for all these many years? We had a Master Plan and ALP that showed planned improvements that you now want me to erase. – And that’s why I think that suggesting is foolish.
When did the FAA guidelines with which we are alleged not to be in compliance of take effect? The current baseline edition of the document referenced above (AC 150/5300-13A) was published in 2012. The guidelines for airport construction were first published in this AC format in 1989 as far as I can tell. Probably, the geometry standards were developed in the 50s and 60s.
What is the cost for adequate maintenance of the airport with its current configuration? My estimate, in the long term, including eventual, cyclical (every 50-100 yrs or so) rebuilding of the runway, taxiways, aprons and buildings is about $2M a year. We currently get about $200K/yr in Tax and $200K/yr in real revenue to operate the airport. So, in total to operate and sustain the infrastructure, my guess is $2.5M/yr. Whatever it is, it’s a lot more than we have…even if you dispute my numbers. It could be as low as an additional $200K/yr and we don’t and won’t have it.
So many more questions exist…if we really want to know what’s what here?
Peg – Same answers I give every time. Do you continue to malign my answers as “no real answers.”?
“Brandts Landing Lane encroaches into the Runway Protection Zone for Runway 16…”
“Mt. Baker Road encroaches into the RPZ for Runway 34…”
Now, REALLY! Reverse that syntax, please. The airport and its RPZs are doing the “encroaching” onto existing roads and private properties. Stop. Stop. Stop.
Tony- thank you.
So that’s 2 to 2.5 million per year to maintain the airport in its current configuration? The difference between that gross range and the amounts received via taxation and revenue have been supplied by the federal government? How many years does this go back? Was there a year or a point in time where the costs jumped due to a change in usage? if so, when did that happen and what was the change in usage? Is there a way to modify one of the alternatives to avoid the most negative impacts the proposed changes without losing federal support? Could we see the airport’s budget for the last five years? Or is it already a public record to which I can be referred? If so, can you point me in that direction?
Again, thank you, sincerely.
Tony—
If I’m understanding your numbers correctly, it would appear that we’ve become addicted to federal funding such that protecting the island’s rural character and its most essential defining qualities means the airport must now suffer extreme rehab/withdrawl symptoms and risk a downgrade in its current configuration and usage.
It’s quite unfortunate that we find ourselves at this crossroad because we’ve been spending “Other People’s Money” to grow into an airport that presently suits the island’s needs BUT NOW must exceed those needs and turn on the Island and harm it if want the drugs to keep flowing—so to speak. See what’s happened here?
It’s kind-a like the Port made a deal with the devil and now he wants his due.
Nothing comes for free!
If there’s no other option available, which we need to verify and thoroughly review, then I propose we go into rehab, come out clean the other side, and preserve Orcas’s Island for present and future generations to come. In other words, live within our means.
PS—living within our means can also mean paying for our presently configured airport ourselves—tax per parcel, airport use fees, etc. All the more reason to carefully scrutinize the budget and see how we can maintain essential services now provided and go from there. There’s no time like the present to learn how to live within our means and apply the Island’s self-sustaining way of life to the Airport; after all, that’s what Orcas Island excells at and is why many of us came here.
Tony—
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 amd where the airport fits in our island lives. It’s a piece not the whole. It need do no harm to the body, that is, orcas island.