–by Matthew Gilbert, Orcas Issues reporter–
The special meeting called by the Port of Orcas to discuss the Port Master Plan, last Thursday at the Eastsound Fire Hall
More than 100 people filled the room and lined the walls of the Eastsound Fire Station meeting room on Thursday, July 26 to vent their frustrations and ask their questions about the pending Airport Master Plan. Others had to be turned away when Fire Chief Scott Williams decided to clear the lobby for safety reasons – although everyone was invited to attend an unofficial “listening session” that began at the end of the formal meeting.
Three of five Port commissioners were present: Dwight Guss, Gregg Sawyer, and Chairman Brian Ehrmantraut. Each, along with Airport Manager Tony Simpson, began the session by introducing themselves with an emphasis on their long island ties. The gesture was unusual but not surprising; the 90+ comments posted in response to the most recent article (https://theorcasonian.com/port-of-orcas-to-expand-but-where-how/) on the plan’s development revealed a significant level of concern and mistrust. When Simpson asked how many people in the room had attended either of the two previous public meetings, only a handful of arms went up – though it was also brought up by several audience members that the Port could have been more forthcoming populating its website with information, raising public awareness, and returning calls. The purpose of this extra public meeting was clearly intended to fill the gaps.
Simpson started his presentation with a broad overview of the process: “The Master Plan will deliver a preferred alternative, an airport layout document, and a framework for moving forward, which will then lead to an environmental impact statement (EIS), which then leads to the engineering phase, permitting, and land acquisition if needed.” He emphasized that the Port has “no appetite” for invoking eminent domain, but couldn’t codify that into the Plan because it would “tie the hands of future commissioners.”
He followed that with a lengthy explanation of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) entitlement funding mechanism. Available monies jump from $150,000 to $1 million when enplanements (the number of people who use a commercial operation, including the island’s biplane rides) exceed 10,000, but it’s incumbent on recipient airports to match a certain percentage of those funds. And though annual growth has been modest and projected to stay that way (1 – 3%/yr.), the Port could exceed that threshold this year. “Kenmore Air has added more flights,” Simpson said, “and been growing close to 20 percent annually the last three years.”
In response to an audience question about whether business-class jets such as the twin-engine Cessna Citation X or Gulfstream G650 would be allowed to use the airport under future scenarios, Simpson said they would not. “They can’t operate here because of the current runway length. They need 4500 ft. and right now we have 3388 feet. And under the new master plan and what is projected, they will never land here.”
[As an aside, he stated that he had not been pressured by the military, customs officials, or Oprah to accommodate such aircraft, providing a rare moment of comic relief in what was a sometimes tense meeting.]
That was the answer many in the audience wanted to hear, but after confirming that there were no plans to extend the runway south into the swale, Simpson did say that Mt. Baker Road was in the “runway protection zone” and he would like to see it moved to eliminate the risk of an auto-aircraft collision. “The county owns that road, though, so it would probably be a long negotiation.”
He then suggested that FAA compliance issues could justify the Port actually shortening the runway to 2200 feet to take Mt. Baker Road out of harm’s way, “but we’d probably lose Kenmore, FedEx, and Island Air.” This led to an exchange about whether any collisions had actually occurred on that road. He mentioned one and also a near-miss in the last few years but over the last 60 years he could not recall any others being reported.
Additional hangar space and a bigger terminal are also part of the plan, and the most likely location for them – along with a parking lot – will be the former dog park parcel on the southeast corner which the Port owns. “Any development there will adhere to current land use restrictions and nothing will likely break ground for at least ten years,” Simpson said, although the specific locations and visual impacts of migrating these facilities to the parcel was an issue to some in the audience. “An EPRC (Eastsound Planning Review Committee) rep is on the Port Advisory Committee,” he added, but he didn’t rule out the possibility that more hangars could be added by private parties.
When asked specifically what the primary objectives of the plan are, he named several:
- Widening the taxiways.
- Relocating the main terminal and two hangars.
- Moving Mt. Baker Road.
- Moving Nina Lane (“But landowners would have to agree to sell it and I don’t think that’s going to happen.”)
- Moving Aeronautical Services to the west side.
“In general,” Simpson said, “we’re looking for the least expensive alternative that serves the Port’s safety, utility, and operational needs.” One audience member then shared a story of another small community accepting FAA money which ten years later impacted it in negative and unintended ways that their commissioners hadn’t anticipated. He said it was an argument for Alternative 1 (“No changes”) and many in the audience clapped. “I just don’t agree,” said Simpson.
When another audience member asked if the Preferred Alternative, to be finalized by September, would be made available for public review and comment, Simpson scoffed. “This process isn’t a democracy. You should run for elected office instead . . . or post something on Orcas Issues.” This prompted someone to call out, “Please show some respect for the citizens in this room.” It wasn’t the first time during the meeting that he dissed the online news source and those commenting in its forum for misrepresenting both him and the issues at stake, at which point it became clear that the civility of the meeting, bending at times but not breaking, was showing cracks.
For a range of reasons, the Port’s plans only recently came to wider public light, and because human nature abhors a vacuum, a variety of legitimate concerns and occasionally more fanciful fears filled the space prior to the meeting. On top of recent decisions regarding Haven Road and the citing of a massive propane tank, the Port’s ambitions, both legitimate and potentially disruptive, seemed like yet another moment when, to many in the room, “What makes Orcas Orcas” felt threatened. There’s a genuine anxiety that something important is being lost, one decision at a time.
The comment period on the build-up to finalizing the plan draft has been extended to Friday August 3 (“Though we’ll accept anything by Monday.”). The Port will also “consider” adding a public response process when the Preferred Alternative is released. Final say on the plan will be made by the commissioners. To submits formal comments and for more information, go to the Port website: www.portoforcas.com.
So it would seem the bottom line is that public opinion has no effect on the port commissioner’s plans of doing whatever’s necessary to get that extra million in funding.
Given the gross disregard and openly hostile attitude towards the opinions of the community, It looks like it’s time to lay the ground work to make sure none of these guys are ever elected to any position that could impact the island in the future!
Profits over people….same s#*t different day.
In the meeting, I said I didn’t know if there was a comment period after the draft preferred alternative and that we would not add it if there wasn’t but that I would find out.
It turns out there is.
I’m also working on modifications to soften the planned use of the SE parcel after a follow-up discussion with a community member.
I’m still available for direct conversation, but it won’t be digital and I’ve left FB.
Sounds like recall petitions for the board members will be the only way to change port opinion.
I attended the Port meeting [Thursday] to find out from the source what is going on with the airport. Still trying to sort out the information from the nonsense. it sounds like the crux of the problem is the runways are going to need repair and since the runway is too short and too narrow for the Cessna Caravan planes being used by Kenmore, FedEx and Island Air, the Port Commissioners and Airport Manager think it would be a good idea to jump through the planning hoops to get some Federal $$ for long term improvements and alterations. So far so good, but the devil is in the details and involves moving Mount Baker Road out of the middle of the runway to retain Orcas’ certification as a “B-II” airport, so those Cessnas we depend upon for freight service and transportation can keep flying in. This will require cooperation from the County, which owns the land in question. Otherwise the Manager and Commissioners say they “think it is likely” the FAA will stop issuing variances.
Unfortunately neither the Airport Manager nor the Commissioners would say why they think it is likely the FAA will stop issuing variances. We don’t know if the FAA has asked questions or issued warnings. We were asked to accept the Airport Manager’s fears and recent anecdotal evidence of one near miss in 60 years as sufficient data to justify an expenditure of millions of dollars in federal tax money and locally collected fees and rents. I asked for safety statistics. How dangerous is Mt. Baker Rd to motorists and pilots as it is currently situated? Life is not risk free and one near miss in 60 years of operation means there is a very low probability of an accident. Far more people have been in automobile accidents on this island or drowned in nearby waters and the risk is deemed acceptable enough that no one has proposed throwing $11-15 million at lowering either of those statistics. The Airport Manager had no data to offer and could only say an abrupt “Yes!” to my question about whether the expense is justified. Other citizens wanted to explore ideas like mitigating the runway problems by scheduling landings and takeoffs to avoid conflict or asking the commercial users to fly planes with shorter wingspans. They were brushed off and derided. The person who asked about smaller planes was met with name-dropping and told to call the decision maker at Kenmore himself to ask that question, with the implication that it was too ridiculous a suggestion for the Airport Manager to even explore.
Perhaps Kenmore doesn’t have smaller planes in it’s fleet. Perhaps such planes would not be cost effective for the Orcas run. I don’t know because no one in charge thought it was worth bothering to explain the situation. Could this information not simply have been shared? I came to this meeting concerned but willing to listen to why changes might be needed. I left furious at watching a public servant paid with public money waste my time by coming unprepared with hard data in terms of economic and safety benefits versus environmental and fiscal costs to the public who employs him. He didn’t even seem to know a jet fuel pump had been put into the proposal or where it fit into the proposed plans. He presented us with limited options all assuming that the people in this community want at least as functional an airport as the one we have now, disagreed or ignored any suggestion to scale back operations, and informed us we didn’t really have any say in the decision since this was a Representative Democracy instead of a Direct Democracy.
Meanwhile the Port Commissioners in attendance sat in silence or repeatedly asked people why they had not come to previous meetings. Looking around the room at the environmental activists, community organizers and many Boards of Directors members in attendance the obvious answer is that we are busy people who go to a lot of meetings and it is probable we had more immediate issues to deal with. Attending a 3:30-5pm weekday meeting for me entails arranging to leave work early and finding childcare and transportation for my daughter. Attending ANY meeting often requires choosing what other meeting or responsibility goes by the wayside. Yet we were repeatedly scolded for attending solely because we had read comments made on an article in Orcas Issues ( an article which I completely missed) and told to “get out of our Orcas Issues Echo Chamber” like some kind of wild-eyed tin-foil hat wearing mob.
Maybe we should have a redesigned, up-to-code airport, but I don’t feel like I was given any dollars and cents analysis or compelling safety data telling me why it is important to spend money doing that rather than simply scaling back on available services.
I would like to see some analysis on the economic impact to the community of each alternative. How much more money is forecast to be pumped into the local economy by maintaining or increasing current traffic? If we scale down current service to comply with FAA standards for a B-l airport instead of scaling up, will jobs be lost? How many? Will there be other impacts on the local economy? What, expressed in dollars, is our exposure on having to return FAA grant funds? We should have elected officials and professional public servants that are informed enough to justify expenditure when asked by THEIR Board of Directors; we the people who elected them. In the future I would also suggest a professional moderator because it was hard to hear the proffered information past the grinding of my teeth every time the Airport Manager made fun of or demeaned someone. The Port will need it’s constituents to advocate for County cooperation. Telling us over and over again to come talk to you one on one and then speaking to us as if we were colicky adolescents is not a really effective way of engendering either community support or that open-door feeling.
Dozens of people that wanted to attend the Port Commission meeting were turned away because of lack of space in the meeting room at the fire station. With the combination of elderly women standing along the walls and the taxpayers being prevented from entering I suggested to the chief that it would just take a few minutes to pull the FD vehicles out onto the tarmac and we could all grab our chairs and move the meeting to the bay!
In no uncertain terms his response was “I am not going to compromise emergency responses”!
REALLY? You do it to serve pancakes twice a year—
A joke one of the past chiefs used to tell was “It’s the least we can do, and we always do the least we can do”~~!
Except this time it was true!
@Anthony “Disser” Simpson and Port Officials; a good suggestion you might consider. Was posted in Orcas Rant and Rave on facebook.
RAVE; The Port extended our Airport Expansion comment time to Aug. 3 and had a special emergency meeting to hear questions/concerns.
RANT: The fire chief would not let us use the Bay when more than 150 people came; many were turned away – incl. some elders and affected landowners turned away or forced to stand outside in the hot sun; people’s questions were un-answered, people not allowed to speak, bullied, insulted, condescended to; agenda thrown completely out, meeting not recorded for further accountability to the Public.
SUGGESTION: extend comment period 1 week past the Aug 9 next Port meeting, make it another emergency meeting STRICTLY for hearing and recording our comments and questions to a Publicly-accessible place – meet in a larger venue or the Fire Hall Bay. Suggest starting meeting at 5 – go until 6:30 or 7, and let the people speak!
Tony,
Assuming nothing but the best of intentions all around, your message that the expansion plans envision widening the runway as opposed to lengthening it is very clear.
The most intrusive physical aspects of the proposed plans are the possibility of future, if not present, forced land reclamation and the effect that the plans will have on Mt Baker Road.
But I think the real issue here is the quality of life impact that the proposed plans will have on Eastsound directly, and the entire island, indirectly; namely, the fact that widening the runway is about increasing air traffic, increasing the number of people who can come to the island at any given time.
Why is this presumed to be a good thing? On many non-monetary metrics that matter most to people, it surely isn’t a good thing.
The answer almost always comes down to more money for some people. Is that not honest? And what’s lost in exchange for the extra “green?”
The pushback I believe is about questioning whether the island should bend over backwards to accommodate increasing flows of people to and from when said increases, overall, negatively impact the lives of residents of Orca’s Island.
Do you understand that concern? From the reporting of the meeting, I didn’t read where that point was clearly made.
Can you understand that due to the island’s limited infrastructure and other physical limitations, that most residents might correctly consider that the airport’s current configuration, allowing the current number of people it does to the island, is appropriate for the island’s rural lifestyle?
BTW, thank you for taking the brunt of all the pushback; despite the disagreements, it is appreciated and is to be commended.
As new residents to Orcas Island who now reside in Eastsound, we attended the recent airport master plan meeting with much anticipation. As long term residents of Aspen, Colorado, we are well aware of the impact increased air traffic can have on a destination. Our experience has been that it is primarily negative and not something Orcas Island would benefit from, quite the contrary. We felt Tony had an in depth understanding of every issue from macro to micro, and was patient and helpful in explaining complex funding and FAA issues to the crowd. We are greatly relieved to know that there are no plans to increase plane traffic into the Orcas airport, that the major plan addresses necessary safety precautions for overall safety and future funding. We will be flying a small plane from Orcas airport and are extremely comfortable with the operations and future plans as outlined at the recent meeting. Thanks Tony for helping all to understand complex issues surrounding the airport master plan. Well done!
John and Julia
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought widening the the runway was to accommodate more traffic and that the safety issue arises because of the increased traffic combined with the lack of width between the planes’ wings as they arrive and depart.
We don’t have a convincing safety issue now and the many many years of past use without incident confirms this—
Moreover, traffic can be controlled to prevent any such safety concerns.
But this means limiting the traffic—which is clearly the problem in the eyes of the Port which their proposed plan is attempting to correct (it’s not a safety issue), and which has so many residents upset.
But, if keeping the traffic roughly where it’s at now prevents the creation of a hazardous situation, isn’t that a legitimate aim and point of view when talking about marrying the island’s population and
its future growth pattern with its physical size and hardened limitations?
I think the point of the many objections can be reduced to:
—not expanding the airport’s capacity—
for all the many reasons proffered and expanded upon.
No matter how you play this fugue, the sound remains consistent in what it’s saying:
this is about expanding traffic and the density of visitors. And THAT is always about money!
That’s Aspen, Nantucket, and Martha’s Vineyeard 2.0.
The infrastructure is being laid now with these plans for that eventual unfolding—do not kid yourselves.
An Orcas Citizens Forum on the subject of airport expansion is scheduled for one hour this Wednesday, August 1, at 5:15 pm sharp at the Oddfellows Hall. All citizens are welcome!
Today’s agenda:
“Width”
Tomorrow’s:
“Length”
See the end-game. Asking for both upfront is counter-productive with longer term strategy thinking—future returns to the trough may not even involve the actual participants today. This is nothing against anyone personally. This is just how development happens and you need to see it to steer it.
It’s not “no development” or “development”—false choices again.
It’s development that’s consistent with the place where the development is happening. I can’t put it any more simply than that.
These developments are done in pieces.
Whittle and wear you down.
A war of attrition.
#Development 101.
Yes, it is certainly true that if you “re: build it, they will come” I would far rather have California cruise ship occupants storm the Eastsound shopping grounds stoned on OF KUSH *Joe Symons colorful image) than see more airport traffic. This summer, the noise is egregiously offensive,.
And, yes, Chris Graham, this ia war of attrition – multiple references were made by Airport Manager Simpson as to how all , if any, of these developments would be “down the line” some ten or twenty years and then after this that and the other processes has been completed. From the large number of grey heads in attendance I suspect most who care enough now will now longer be around or active “down the line.”
The disconnect here is real – from propane tanks to build out to the airport. The ability of citizens to impact their own environment, one that in this case often requires sacrifice and intent to create – is fast slipping away.
Of course, we must thank Mr Simpson for reminding this that expansion is “Not a democratic process” Maybe it should be. Three of the commissioners in attendance are pilots, How about a non=piolit on the Port Commission?
Why did the airport or fire department hot come out against the propane tank and why isn’t the OIFD opposing the expansion?
As I write this bulldozers and Orcas Excavating personnel are taking out trees on the West side opposite the Larson property. Where is there any notice of this activity. Why are those most affected the last to be informed.
Wait, I suspect I know the answer. See Luther Bliss’ comment above.
There are ways to impede the wrong kind of development.
Many careers are designed around it.
Some of us provide services to others who can pay in order to provide them to those most in need and under-represented.
It’s no wonder the airport manager is so defensive, they did everything to keep this process as quiet as possible, and then when people find out what is actually being planned, all the Port can say is ‘Why weren’t you at the previous (poorly advertised) meetings that we never publicly announced the scope of?’ They clearly have already made up there mind, and their derision of democracy and the citizens who spent their time to come and be informed is telling. They have no care for the broader community’s desires, and now they have their hand in the cookie jar saying ‘oops we hoped you wouldn’t notice, now go away!’
It’s also telling that they are using the previous meetings poor attendance as a bludgeon to citizens criticism, rather than reflecting on what a bad job they did of spreading the word about something which people are obviously passionate about. No, better to blame everyone else.
Good news though, two Port Commissioners are up for re-election next year. Maybe we can find some candidates who will push to hire a new manager who respects the people who pay his salary. Then we can really show him the meaning of democracy.
Brava to everything Cindy Wolf said – standing ovation!!! And kudos to Joe Murphy, Stan Wagner, Chris Graham, Susan Malins, Luther Bliss, Bob Phalan, and all the other citizens, whether for or against expansion, who took time and effort to come to the meeting and who have the right to ask hard questions and expect concrete answers and flexibility from Public servants paid by taxpayer monies to make every effort to not only consider our solutions but follow through in seeking them. Several viable solutions were thrown in the ring by intelligent, savvy citizens; these were disregarded as foolish, naive, ridiculous and amateur… but are they?
I appreciate that our Port manager is listening to us and trying to take a “softer” approach at the SE. True, there is a comment period after the Sept. Workshop but it is only to “review and comment” on the “preferred plan.” Please understand that this won’t effect going back to the drawing board. Why do I feel so uncomfortable and ill-at-ease with the “talk to me directly” tack, and the “I won’t engage electronically” tack, that our PUBLIC servant hired by our elected port commissioners, is taking? What’s wrong with committing to print for the Public; am I the only one who feels this un-ease?
“Safety” – I hear that word a lot in all the talk of why we need this expansion. Shouldn’t safety include, and be driven by, the majority of ground-dwellers who will be impacted for years to come by these sweeping changes that will impact our town, our roads, our traffic, our kids, our wildlife, our water quality and air quality, our ears, our island?
What about the idea to use the smaller cessnas with more flights per day, and phase out the caravan use? Plus, staggering commercial flight times is a brilliant idea; simple, cheap, effective; do-able. It is the Port’s responsibility to prove to us that this expansion project won’t negatively impact every aspect of the lives in our little town and 1 mile-wide North to South Wetland Basin land mass with Puget Sound on both sides.
Susan Malins, who will be at the Wed. Odd Fellows meeting that can accurately answer the public’s questions? So much of this talk has turned emotional that many are not listening even when explanations are trying to be discussed. Rumors are flying and fears are growing rather than “going to the source” and calmly discussing what has been proposed. I hope that the meeting at the Odd Fellows can help bring this community back together with factual information from a knowledgeable source.
We have never heard a rational answer to WHY?
The airport is currently used by, on average, 3 Caravan flights by Kenmore, 1 by Fed Ex and 1-2 non-Caravan flights by San Juan Air. What other data exist concerning the number of flights, commercial and non-commercial, that occur every day? How do those data compare to use over the past 10 years? How can anyone make a decision with such data? (There should also be data about noise levels.)
Is the airport now unsafe for Caravans? And has it been so for the past 10 years? If so, why did no one at the Port think to advise those of us who fly in and out?
I suspect that the answer is that the FAA has its “best practices” and seeks to impose them everywhere regardless of other considerations. This is what waivers are for, and why the airport is operating under one.
Does the Port need the money from the FAA to run the airport in its current configuration? How are the Port taxing authority proceeds spent? What fees are charged for planes to use the airport? What would it cost to do upkeep on the current configuration per tax parcel?
The Mount Baker Road proposal is ludicrous. A few years back we were “sold” a new Mount Baker Road that came in late, over budget and, reportedly, defective.
To move it, adding turns and a roundabout (?!), makes no sense for something that was touted as a major through route for larger vehicles.
As for the “why weren’t you at the prior meetings” comment, even those of us with flexible schedules can’t make every meeting on this island or in this County, and many of us don’t have flexible schedules. I searched for information because I could not attend the first meeting, and found nothing. The information was only recently published on the Port website.
I have spent more than 40 years working in and with bureaucracies and have yet to see one that didn’t want all the new bells and whistles. . . because they exist. I am tired of bells and whistles changing the character of the community we chose 15 years ago. And I find it quite difficult to believe that this is a safety issue, because if it were, the airport would be closed. Now. (The purported concern, I’ve been told, is that a Caravan on the taxiway could touch wings with a Caravan on the runway. Given the fact that Kenmore seldom has more than one Caravan at the airport at any one time, and that FedEx comes once a day, and that everyone knows this, I find it hard to take this concern seriously.)
We will no doubt now hear about how safety, however defined, is everything. One of our former County Engineers used to take this position, seeking in effect to pave over the County to idiot-proof the roads. There can be a balance, and we need balance here on this small island.
Sadie–
I think that the commercial flight times are already staggered. There are no more than four or five Caravan landings a day. Smaller Kenmore planes are probably much less efficient and would mean more flight noise (though I’m not sure how the noise compares between the two.) I think we’re struggling to solve a non-problem, but that’s my personal opinion. Alternative #1!
The Port has over $750,000. In reserve. The airport has operated safely since 1960 so that’s over 50 years.
And how many planes will be coming for the fly in this weekend ? This is a rural airport that needs modest improvements.
Why did the airport or fire department not come out against the propane tank and why isn’t the OIFD opposing the expansion? –
We, the Port, did. – If the tank is installed, I have discussed seeking an injunction because we were and are clear that we do not permit access and egress across Port property. – This is the only direct interest we have, but I feel strongly enough about the incompatibility of the planned use that we’ll invest in it more than the County did in remaining engaged on the issue on appeal.
Missing the Forest for the Trees.
The real issue here seems to be concern for the Aspenization/Marthaization/Nantucketization of Orcas. That is not being caused by the Airport. If you’re worried about 10,000 or even 12,000 enplanements per year, think about the 8,000 that can come here by a ferry in a day. Also think about the Disneyland services springing up in addition to unregulated housing (VRBO, AirBnB, etc.).
There also seems to be a measure of class warfare in the discussion as if the rich people come to Orcas by wheeled plane to the Airport. Most of the money’d people come by floats. Someone like Oprah (or Paul Allen or Bill Gates) would never use our airport because it doesn’t afford the privacy they would want – and it never will.
If you want to stop or reverse this, it isn’t the airport…you should cut back the ferry schedule and put an end to AirBnB and VRBO. – You might also not allow camping on property without services or that are not zoned recreational or residential.
Sadie…it’s not my job to spend my day reading and responding to this. Send me an email, I will respond and you can post it.—As can anyone else.
We have at least two airplanes based on the field that are group II airplanes.
There are more than 5 Caravan landings a day.
Replacing the Caravan with smaller Cessna’s loses on a couple points. Piston Airplanes are louder. It would probably be 207s (think Orange San Juan Airlines Airplanes), so louder, is less economical and results in more flights. – Kenmore had twin pistons and sold them for good reason.
Our meeting schedule is always published in the Newspaper and posted according to law on our facility. We also post at the Post Office. And like nobody is doing, try calling or emailing me directly. I will always permit you to record my conversation, if desired.
Peg—insightful questions and observations!
Your comments strike the “reasonable” balance between “need” and “want” making clear that there is little if any need to warrant the certain “damage” to be occasioned by implemention of the proposed plan.
MEANINGFUL reasons for the airport expansion are non-existent and the effort being made to find and push our “fear” buttons are becoming all too transparent.
I prefer not to be direct on an issue that understandaby embarrasses some, but it’s quite clear that this proposal is unmistakably ALL about govt’ money.
Only as an afterthought is the incredulous rationale proffered for upending peoples’ lives, moving a quite important artery on the island and ensuring more air traffic only to further deteriorate the living conditions of those residing in and around the airport.
Let the money go!
It’s so not worth it!
Tony,
I’d be intellectually dishonest if I didn’t give you credit for the following effective reply:
“The real issue here seems to be concern for the Aspenization/Marthaization/Nantucketization of Orcas. That is not being caused by the Airport. If you’re worried about 10,000 or even 12,000 enplanements per year, think about the 8,000 that can come here by a ferry in a day. Also think about the Disneyland services springing up in addition to unregulated housing (VRBO, AirBnB, etc.).”
Good point!
Though, the additional air traffic does add to the problem; however, even more so, it causes harm to the local community as amply described in previous posts.
It would appear to come down to “need” vs “harm.”
Weigh “little or no need” against the “harm” to be caused (the harm has been amply defined in many posts)— should the proposal go forward.
That’s the continuing disconnect in this conversation—as of now, only gov’t funds appear to explain this disconnect.
I think the Nantucketization response is a deflection. There are a raft of concerns directly related to the airport.
PR hints: Telling people “it’s not my job” and “it’s not a democracy” might not be the way you want to go.
And seriously, I asked for number and was told there’s no data. Now, I posted the flights of which I am aware and you say there are “more”–how about a number?
The way to get the public information about meetings is NOT the legal minimum required (small print in the newspaper of record). It’s a promotion piece or an interview with the Islands’ Sounder and Orcas Issues, something the expensive consultants could produce, I would imagine.
I said there are four or five Caravan flights a day. This is because I was told earlier that there were no data, so I added up what I knew to exist in the commercial sector. (For anyone who thinks that Amazon has a plane or that FedEx makes more than one flight a day, rest assured that Amazon uses FedEx air for some packages but also trucks in a lot of packages.) The response that there are “more” Caravan flights than five is hardly satisfying to anyone interested in this issue. How many ARE there–is it a secret? I’ve only seen two simultaneously active Caravans once in my ten years here. The “safety” issue is Caravan wing tips touching, no? That’s why the increase in separation between runway and taxi way? And given that they’re Kenmore or FedEx, they are fully aware of the presnce of the others.
What Group II planes are based here? Are Group II airplanes those with wing span of Caravans? How often do they fly?
The Nantucket concern is hardly the only one, and there’s a lot of effort to deflect from the real issue of the airport. A new terminal, new hangars, eminent domain of people’s land, taking some of the marina, rerouting the major road across the isthmus–all disrupting the Orcas we’ve come to love. Why?
Are the paid and elected Port representatives coming to tomorrow’s meeting?
I’ve seen this type of reaction to public questions and concerns before. A public relations hint: telling taxpayers and residents that “it’s not my job” or “it’s not a democracy” just might not be the way to approach them.
Yes, Peg.
Whether intended or not, deflection is a tool being employed in this debate.
After stripping out the shiny ornaments and other selling points not central to the issue of whether or not there’s justification for the harm that will be caused, the issues are reduced to what’s most obvious:
there’s upwards of $1 million on the table if somehow or someway a reason can be back-ended into a pre-determined (pre-decided) outcome that can now be used to justify the harmful changes called for in the proposed plan— in order to pacify residents’ concerns.
Peg & Chris, can you please explain why people on Orcas hate Nantucket so much? I mean the place is your punching bag. I understand you think it’s “too commercial” but is it terrible to have a good hospital (affiliated with Mass General,) amazing beaches that are free and open to the public, a substantial presence in wind power, and financial stability? Perhaps the two islands could even learn from each other if the animosity was dropped? Both islands have a real problem with affordable housing for the workers who “service” the wealthy second home owners and tourists, both have issues with garbage and water supplies, and both have issues with global climate change. I hope you would at least consider the possibility of toning it down a little and seeing where cooperation/sharing experience among lots of islands might bear some fruit. Just a suggestion though… BTW, other than the zip line, what other “Disney” attractions have come to Orcas since I was last there?
Neil—Personally I have nothing against Nantucket. Having originated from the East Coast I’ve spent and continue to spend time on the Cape and its nearby islands.
One of the reasons I opted for the Pacific Northwest, which might be one or more of the reasons you find Orcas Island attractive, is its wilderness, pristine nature and much less dense population— in the sense, living on one of the less populated San Juan Islands is a bit closer to living off the grid and living away from rampant development.
Being further away from concentrated pockets of money that seem to always be the determining outcome factors in build-outs and in defining a community was an important reason in choosing the Pacific Northwest; in addition, the wilderness in this region knows no bounds as we have British Columbia, Alberta, Oregon, Montana and a few other Western states whose mountain ranges continue into the states from Canada (Alberta); given the different geological ages of the two coasts, the West is much less settled and therefore much more dramatic in landscape (and more active in tectonic plate movememt).
Combine all of that with much more room to roam free, it’s nothing short of intoxicating to a Manhattanite like myself….not all of my big city dwelling neighbors and friends appreciate these qualities; but that’s life—to each his or her own.
In fact, I have a neighbor on Orcas who moved from New England where he and his wife once lived in a quaint town that was slowly but surely changed by those who much more readily place money and profit ahead of other “quality of life” factors and in this case it was about densely packing an historic neighborhood with McMansions, or McMoney.
Are these impulses present in the Pacific Northwest? Of course they are. But there’s also a fairly common mentality of demandi more open spaces combined with less concentrated pockets of money that, together, perhaps, buys us all a lot more time and gives us more choices and options when it comes to building a community that’s better balanced and not predicated solely on dollar/profit considerations—the key is balance.
Sorry if the above contains generalizations but I think the rough outline is fairly accurate— even if exceptions exist—which I’m sure they do in several pockets of New England.
So it’s not about having anything against Nantucket the Cape, or Martha’s Vineyard, they simply denote different life choices than those that exist in the Pacific Northwest and they also have very different factors affecting their physical development and culture.
Chris, I really appreciate your thoughtful response. I understand that if things get too “built out” on Orcas, there are places like Waldron to which you and others can always escape with a much lower likelihood of ever getting jet planes. You might find it interesting that the population on the Cape is actually decreasing due to a combination of costs and an aging population. Perhaps you’ll get lucky and the same will happen on Orcas? Keep up the fight and I have no doubt that the citizens of Orcas will get exactly what they desire. They are a determined people from my experience…
Thanks, Neil.
But I think most on Orcas want a healthy mix of people and backgrounds. I think that tends to benefit everyone in the long run. It’s probably fair to say that turning orcas island into nothing more than a tourist property rental destination has the long-term effect of destroying affordable housing prospects thereby preventing a future population comprised of different backgrounds, income levels and ages.
Given that orcas island is unlikely to ever become a magnet for those seeking jobs, it will likely be further developed by a combination of seniors with money, a small service sector population (provided we can ensure adequate affordable housing), contractors who make a fairly decent living and who you can save up for a down payment on a home, and remote independent/techies who can successfully work remotely from Orcas and earn very good pay.
I’m sure I’m missing some other categories but hopefully the make up will be diverse in all aspects.
But, alas, we deflect too much.
Arrgh–please excuse the repetition in my post. I thought I lost the original one when I apparently was simply adding to it.
“Nantucket” has been a meme on Orcas since before memes were memes. It is of limited usefulness, being a meme. I believe that, for many it symbolizes real estate available solely to the enormously wealthy, and a “fly-in for the season” vibe, rather than a diverse group of residents in a real community. I doubt that the average Orcas resident knows or cares much about Nantucket, and I doubt that Nantucket even knows we exist.
Peg, if this is the way that I’m invited, the day before in a blog post, then, no, I’m not coming. I was also scheduled to work tomorrow night at 6PM and nobody coordinated with me. I think it a little ironic that people complained about me scheduling a meeting 2 weeks in advance for 3:30 in the afternoon and expected me to schedule another one, so Peg…I’d like you to schedule another meeting for tomorrow at 3:30 so I can attend.
But all that above can be summed as frankly, I don’t feel welcome.
However, I can’t be that petty, so, I’ll try to get some backfill to be late to work and try to be at your meeting. If I can’t get backfill and I say I need to leave at 5:40, people need to let me go.
I’ve invited all of you to call, email and visit me and yet it doesn’t happen.
You asked about daily numbers and cited 5, so I looked today. There are 5 scheduled arrivals by Kenmore. Those sometimes are cancelled and sometimes are more than 1 airplane in the summer. So, today it was probably 5 or 6. FedEx is scheduled twice a day basically every weekday, so now, probably were up to a total of 7 or 8. Island Air wasn’t here today, but 1 or 2 is reasonable, so maybe 8-10. One of the based aircraft flew today so that’s 9-11. An operation is technically either a takeoff or landing, so you should essentially double this number and you get 18-22 operations by Group II aircraft on a given day like today. With unscheduled transients, which are few, I suspect the 99th percentile highest number would be 12 landings and 12 takeoffs or 24 operations as defined by the FAA.
I’m not sure why folks are focused on the money. I’m not, and here is why for a couple of reasons. Even without 10,000 enplanements, our status as a commercial services airport on an island with a vibrant aviation community and limited financial means has regularly allowed us to secure discretionary funding above and beyond our current $150,000 annual entitlement. Our most recent grant was about $2M and at most, $450,000 came from our “entitlement.” The rest was discretionary based on the FAAs competitive assessment of value to the National system of airports.
I can provide you our 5-year “Capital Improvement Plan” letter from the FAA. It’s a mutually agreed upon, but rolling, 5-year plan of AIP projects. So, subject to change, but projecting an environmental impact statement in 2020 (and I hate how expensive activism has made it even as I think its the greatest legacy of Jimmy Carter) and a design (not construction) project in 2023.
You might ask, why do we have that fidelity in our plan if the Master Plan isn’t done? The answer is, we were supposed to rebuild our runway 4 years ago and it stalled over our lack of a current Master Plan.
I’ve addressed using smaller airplanes in numerous forums. I’ll do it again here. Because of FAA regulations regarding number of pilots, equipment and flight attendants, a nine-passenger airplane is a sweet spot for efficiency in scheduled operations. The Cessna Caravan and it’s engine are very efficient for a nine-passenger design and design is mature and has an extremely impressive safety record. They are used all over the world for this reason. If you go on a flight in Africa, it’s probably on a Cessna Caravan. Virtually every FedEx feeder flight is a Cessna Caravan. There are probably 20-40 that takeoff every morning from SEATAC for Washington alone. If you try to scale that back to a Cessna 207, it costs more and its not as safe. Kenmore had Chieftains, twin pistons that carry 7 light passengers (I think). Burns probably twice the gas, requires twice the maintenance, noisier, more flights. — Given all the inputs here (some artificial like longstanding FAA regulations), the market has made the Caravan the winner where it can fly… 1,200 grass/gravel strip? No. 2,175′ asphalt…probably not in scheduled commercial service and when Lopez was shortened recently, my boss at Island Air said “No” at night and “Maybe” on a case-by-case basis in the the day. — As I have said before, Kenmore would probably walk away with the Caravan if our runway was shortened to 2,175′.
I see less harm in more enplanements than I see from most other forms of travel. An airplane burns less fuel per mile than a boat. Possibly, even less per mile per passenger. They generally don’t run aground or spill fuel in the water. When they do, its usually gas or kerosene, which is less harmful than bunker fuel or diesel (as it evaporates). Passengers on planes don’t bring cars. Even on the noise front, I get plenty of noise at Pt Lawrence from oil tankers in the fog. I consider quaint and a reminder of our history. That history also includes a lot of aviation.
It’s so great to see questions being answered publicly, bravo! Just to clarify today’s meeting at 5:15 at Odds — this is not a fact finding focus, but rather a chance for concerned citizens to communicate with each other. Simple. All citizens are invited, and Tony, of course you’re welcome! but please know the format of the meeting is set.
This is in no way a “do-over” for the recent Port meeting, although that would be helpful imho & I hope the Port schedules a “do-over” — with overlays on maps, public comment, etc.
Tony—I didn’t schedule the meeting. I think you have me confused with another woman. Perhaps we’re difficult to tell apart.
Peg, my apologies. I guess it was Susan, but I can’t tell because nobody communicates directly with me.
There will be no “do-over” unless I’m directed by my Chairperson. I will not volunteer a similar opportunity unless somebody invites me to present to them and have me available to answer questions and listen to your concerns.
And to clarify, there are at least 3 “based” Group II aircraft now. There were 3 group II aircraft on the ground today (8/2/18).
I flew into the airport on a Cessna Caravan this afternoon; as usual, it’s an extremely safe operation. I asked the pilot if he had issues with the runway and he says he’s never had any. That’s hardly a scientific poll but it at least anecdotally backs up my sense and personal experience, as one who uses the airport quite frequently, that its routine daily operations seem as safe as they’ve always been. I also had a nice glimpse from the air of how Mt Baker Road is so well integrated into our grid; it had a slow but steady stream of traffic.
I’ll be flying out on a caravan again next week; and then a couple more times this month…I’ll keep asking different pilots if they’ve experienced issues or heard of safety issues with our airport and/or its airstrip.
Tony–thank you for your long and complete comments about five comments up.
You seem to cover many issues. But what I think is really missing here even after all the detail in your comments is: why change what works?— and what has worked since the airport’s inception.
Your detail and comments actually become a little deflective since they failed to address the real point of concern for most residents—kind of like being drowned in detail to escape dealing with the first and foremost obvious question: why?
The point addressed by so many residents who are upset with this proposal is that the airport is fine; it works; we don’t need additional plane traffic— without getting into the question of whether that’s good or bad— especially in light of the fact that the proposal calls for substantial infrastructural interruption in and around the airport, quality-of-life harm to residents and altering Mount Baker Road—All huge and disruptive undertakings when no real need has been demonstrated.
All of the detail in your very substantial comment seems to miss that very basic point/concern.
Sounds and looks to me like that response by Tony was based on science, study (by those who know about these group II aircraft and not just emotions and opinions and observations by citizens). I assume that those planes need to be safe on days and nights, in good weather and bad weather. If it were raining sideways and blowing 20 knots at midnight in November and one of my family members or friends needs to be flown off I would love to have a little cushion for the pilot I trust is taking off or landing. As I looked outside today it was full sunlight, some breeze, but basically the best conditions for flying (my analysis – not being a pilot), so I would hope that your ride was perfect today Chris! The airport may look fine from Mt. Baker Rd. and the terminal, etc, but I am certain that there is a lot of homework that goes into keeping an airport safe and well maintained. Many (me included) take for granted this process as the tax payers and voters who voted for the port commissioners.
Andrew, very insightful. As any pilot would tell you, in aviation things work great until they don’t. It’s usually sudden, unpredicted, and there are only moments to respond before things can become lethal. The FAA sets up rules to try to prevent death and to give pilots room for safe recovery. Take off and landing are the most critical times and the most stressful to the mechanical parts of engines, metal, and landing gear. I can assure you that for a pilot, there’s no such thing as a runway that’s too long or too wide.
Andrew—
I don’t know that I can disagree with anything you’ve said except that the airport has been functioning for decades without incident—certainly not experiencing the concerns you intimate as possibilities and this fact establishes confidence in we the passengers.
A long history without incident represents experience over many many years— that’s fairly empirical, not emotional.
Further, combine the above decades of incident- free empirical evidence with the fact that Kenmore doesn’t think twice about canceling a flight if conditions aren’t right and we have yet additional safeguards in place as their experienced pilots give us added safety— which isn’t asking for anything “extra” but simply asking for professionals to be competent and qualified.
So, what’s the change agent here?
Why now after all these decades is the airport considered unsafe?
And it’s that change agent that most residents reject.
Do we need more plane traffic? And, if so, at what price?
Context matters. This proposal is not happening in a vacuum. It would negatively affect peoples lives and their property; it would chip away, yet again, at the character of Eastsound and the island in general.
why change what works?
I had a phone call from Rod Magner who came to Orcas in 1991 to start the original biplane business. I think he was widely loved and respected, but I know some didn’t appreciate his contribution of noise. He wrote this in an unsolicited email to a friend of his (not me).
As I recall, the same issues or nearly the same were presented back when I
started my business in 1991. We still have FAA funding, we bought the
acreage on the corner where the dog park is and the FAA isn’t thrilled that
it has been undeveloped but maybe it would be useful to see what they have
said via letters in that regard.
The only safety concern *IS *Mt. Baker road. I watched thousands of
landings from my hangar for 25 years and there were a fair number which
could have resulted in a collision between a semi truck and an aircraft
dragging it in. We were blind on the east because of trees. I saw cars
coming west on Mt. Baker that slowed when they saw an aircraft on final,
but occasionally they did not and there were a couple of close calls. Not
many, maybe 4 or 5. Rerouting the road makes the most sense to me.
Over those years I watched Otters, Caravans and Beavers and other long
winged aircraft land without incident with respect to the wing to wing
clearance between the taxiway and runway. My best guess is that we should
be good for another 25 years where taxiway and runway dimensions sit.
The ramp in front of the terminal gets crowded if more than two Kenmore
Caravans need it. Thats pretty rare however.
No one ever hit my biplane though I think many came pretty close taxiing
by. When a pilot has tight spaces on a ramp he is normally pretty concerned
about his wing clearances and his prop blast. Its a lot like parking in a
tight space with a big F-150, you are just extra cautious.
Thanks Tony —for sharing the email and of course I presume you had Mr. Magner’s permission before making it public.
Mr. Magner’s concerns clearly come across as sincere and as a pilot with years of experience flying in and out of Eastsound, it’s certainly due serious consideration.
In my line of work risk assessment is the first and the last question I always review. I’m usually the one advising my clients with the words “X doesn’t happen until it does.” But, in truth, that analysis is a bit simplistic—all sorts of costly “unnecessary” action can be commenced if that’s the only prerequisite.
So we’re back to weighing X against Y with the proviso that risk can never be eliminated but it can be mitigated.
As relevant as Mr. Magner‘s email is (and I’m sure it might be echoed by other pilots), it’s an expression of “what if‘s” and “what might happen” but, at the end of the day, “has not happened” in all these many years.
I hope you can see how understandable it is to call the sudden alarm into question after so many years of operating the airport without any of the incidents that are now so feared.
Why is this point relevant?
Because the plan proposed calls for a serious amount of disruption to Eastsound and to the people living in around the airport, a clear decrease in the quality of living for those living in or around the airport, and the possibility down the road of people losing their land by force— not to mention the disruption of a very important artery, Mt Baker Road.
Further, an increase in traffic can safely be assumed down the road under the proposal since the increased width of the airstrip would conceivably allow a greater number of caravans or other such B2 class planes to land and depart at the same time.
However, if the airport’s present-day use parameters remain in effect, it would seem, empirically at least, that the cost to residents and to the island is outweighed by the minimal, if any, benefits to be derived from the proposed plan.
Again, what has changed?—that could justify the disruption and alteration called for in the proposal?
Absolutely context matters!!! It would also negatively affect working people’s and fixed income people’s lives if the FAA were to say you have not updated your master plan with any of these concerns and we are not going to provide any funding for repaving or maintaining the ‘little airport’!!! In that case we would be faced with another bond or tax increase (locally) to maintain this airport without any FAA funding (as I have heard upwards of 90% would come from the FAA). The additions of the most recent taxes lately (not all of which have we actually seen on our tax bills yet) and to include another for an airport would push some folks over the ‘edge’! Just another consideration in context of the small community that we live in. No I have not been to the port meetings leading up to this to hear this for certain, but that is a likely consideration that must also be addressed…It is easy to cancel a Kenmore scheduled flight, but not as much on the fixed wing Island Air emergency flight! Not trying to get into scare tactics here, but again putting the concerns in context as you suggest, Chris.
Andrew—
We are in agreement.
Your well-chosen words “maintain and repave” I believe resonate with all and is what’s to be expected.
But the proposal calls for much more than “maintaining” the airport in good condition; it calls for serious alteration that has a “real” and “tangible” impact on residents’ lives and their properties, and on chipping away at the Island’s character—see how these impactful changes add up. Don’t look at this proposal in isolation, or in a vacuum.
Perhaps we need to be sure of the presumed facts, i.e, the FAA’s conditions for funding; because if they are conditions and not recommendations that would be significant. Are there waivers? Are they optional, or mandated by federal law? Does our size place us in a more flexible category? Details and verification of facts are needed.
What about Plan B:
-Maintain the airport ourselves or with FAA monies; -More tightly control air traffic in all of its many dimensions.
(Others can add on ideas)
This may be a better solution for residents and the Island.
Why not see how much better we might do under Plan B and thereby reduce the “risks” now being raised that were never voiced, or asked to be acted upon until now?
It would be a much smaller price to pay for Eastsound’s residents and go further not just to “maintain” the airport, but also the island’s overall character and rural quality.
Orca’s island is much more than a single airport:
The airport is vital in many respects but we have to remember that the airport is here “to serve the island’s needs” not to detract from it, harm it, or take us in a direction that’s sharply in conflict with its distinct, incomparable qualities.
That’s context.
Yes, those are questions that I am guilty of not going to the port meetings to know the answers to. What I am saying is if the FAA will not fund maintenance as the airport exists now, and it needs a plan (master plan) to deal with the present day traffic and the expected growth in the next 10ish years then I don’t feel good about another tax to pave and maintain! We can go on forever about growth on the island and how things change with more people, chipping away at the island character…my family is guilty of moving here, as are my parents and many friends! I think I need to check out of this string, now! Thanks to those that are working on this problem/challenge!
We’re pretty much on the same page, Andrew.
People don’t change the character of a place; it’s what they do that does that. Personally, I like seeing the island diverse in all respects: backgrounds, ages, job skills, and income levels, etc…
All the participation here on OI is remarkable.
As Bob Gamble has reminded us, today is the deadline to make your comments known to the appropriate people.
One “fun” thing we did on Tangier Island was when the airstrip needed to be repaved, the FAA had to bring in a portable, barge-mounted asphalt plant to do the job. Since it was already there, we managed to get most of our streets repaved as well and it saved us a ton of $$$. Maybe there is a way to work together to the benefit of all?