— by Matthew Gilbert, Orcas Issues reporter, reprinted upon request July 9, 2018 —
Orcas Airport (picture taken before trees cleared on southern part of Port property).
[Editor’s note: Comments on alternatives have been extended to Aug. 3, originally due July 13. An additional public meeting is scheduled for Thursday, July 26 at 3:30 p.m. (see orcasissues.com/port-of-orcas-master-plan-now-includes-special-meeting-and-extended-comment-deadline/)]
The latest check point in the 18-month process to complete a Master Plan for the Port of Orcas took place June 5 at the Eastsound Firehall. The first opportunity for the public to learn about the new plan was last January (orcasissues.com/airport-master-plan-holds-open-house/), where the broad scope of the needs and the process was presented by members of the Seattle-based consulting firm DOWL, led by project leader Leah Henderson. The purpose of the new plan is to guide development of the airport over the next 20 years while addressing a range of issues from safety and infrastructure to traffic growth and expansion.
According to Henderson and the FAA, the two most important issues the plan is designed to address are
- Safety issues. The currently runway widths and distance between runways do not meet the FAA’s airport design standards for the largest aircraft serving the Port, specifically, the Cessna Caravan 208B, currently used by FedEx, Island Air, and Kenmore Air. It’s rated a B-2 aircraft but the Port was originally designed to serve B-1 aircraft.
- Anticipated growth. Although the yearly growth in enplanements (the number of people boarding an aircraft) has been modest (2.8 percent), it starts to add up when stretched out over a 20-year period, ultimately requiring additional tiedowns, hangars, and terminal expansion.
Meeting the needs of these two priorities will require significant changes to the existing facilities and runways that will potentially impact a sizeable portion of adjacent land, including the (former) dog park parcel on the southeast corner, areas between the airport and North Beach Road, Brandt’s Landing, the western perimeter south of Mt. Baker Road including the wetlands, and Mt. Baker Road itself. The Port owns the southeast parcel as well as a larger parcel on the opposite (west) side of the current runways but not all the land that may be needed.
The development of optional build-out scenarios “is still at a high level,” says Henderson. Most of the expansion monies would come from the FAA, but if the Port reaches 10k enplanements – which it may do this year – its annual funding allocation would jump from $150k to $1M, accelerating the process.
The current configuration of the Port is considered a “constrained environment,” says Henderson, meaning that expansion scenarios will have some degree of disruptive impact depending on which build-out plan is chosen. Among the concerns raised:
- Mt. Baker Road runs through what is considered a possible “runway protection zone” that would require it to be re-routed to accommodate a runway extension. Although no fleet changes [translation: larger aircraft] are expected, it’s unclear how such an extension would affect such changes down the road.
- Residential encroachment along North Beach Road would be likely depending on how far east new facilities are extended. Noise and sound mitigation issues would accompany such an expansion.
- The waterway that serves Brandt’s Landing and Smuggler’s Villa, as well as the wetlands, are also potentially in the expansion zone with likely environmental impacts.
- If additional land is needed that the Port doesn’t currently own or have access to, how will it acquire that land?
So far there have been two public meetings. The first one was in January (orcasissues.com/Airport-Master-Plan -Open-House); the most recent was June 5 – only a dozen community members attended. There is now an open comment period regarding the alternatives proposed until July 13. All comments received by July 13th will be considered in the development of the preferred alternative.
The “preferred plan” will be presented at the third Orcas Port Open House, scheduled for September. Visit the Port website (https://www.portoforcas.com/master-plan/) to see the latest build-out alternatives and post comments
If you would like to submit a comment, please comment on the website https://www.portoforcas.com/master-plan/ or send an email to orcasmasterplan@dowl.com or contact project manager Leah Henderson at orcasmasterplan@dowl.com or (425) 869-2670.
There’s a lot at stake . . .
The title to this article forgot something….”Where/How” is there in the title but the forgotten word is WHY!?!?
I am hard pressed to understand the constant need to make everything bigger and bigger thinking that always makes it better. If our airport doesn’t safely accommodate larger planes, why don’t we say “NO” to larger planes? Is that really going to be a problem going forward? If the only way to expand is going to hurt people and the land….why are we assuming we should do it?
The above article also suggests where to leave comments..but after looking at the web site I surely couldn’t find a place for comments…. Maybe they aren’t needed….
It is sad that not many (including me) attended the presentation meeting. I’m sure most don’t know and/or believe that this expansion is necessary and will really happen. Sadly, these projects DO happen while we aren’t paying the attention we should….
If the FAA thinks some of the planes using our airport are too large for the facility. Use smaller planes!!!!!! We should not enlarge the footprint of the airport.
The Port Commission and the Port Director are doing a great job maintaining the airport that serves Orcas. The FAA should not be allowed to reconfigure Eastsound.
This is a classic case of the “tail wagging the dog”. The apparent safety issue resolution would change our small island airport from a B1 rate to a B2. That rating would allow bigger jets to use our airport. Can you imagine the impact of daily commercial passenger jets arriving a (and leaving!)? Not only an incredible increase in noise, but also a flood of thousands of more visitors into the heart of our village and island. This would wreck Eastsound and its bucolic ambience that we so love and value. What a truly horrible idea! Are the elected Commissioners responsible for this? This is an issue that our community needs to stand up and speak out against this proposal.
My neighbors and I do who live in the North Beach area and south around Lover’s Lane don’t want the taxiway or runway moved closer to our homes and in some cases our land taken by the Port. Planes rev their engines as they move down the taxi way and that produces a significant amount of noise. We don’t want planes any closer to us or to make the airport more attractive to larger, louder aircraft. The options the Port has offered to widen the separation between runway and taxiway require the airport to be expanded, privately owned buildings to be removed (less of a sound buffer), Brandt’s Landing Marina reduced/partially filled in, etc. We and nobody we know wants to live next to a larger airport.
The smaller propeller planes are great because they don’t make much noise. Just because the Port of Orcas could get more money from the FAA if the airport is enlarged doesn’t mean Eastsound, especially the residential areas, should be encroached upon. Imagine if the marina had approached the Port of Orcas with plans to expand its area and shorten the runway so that the marina could make more money shuttling tourists from Bellingham. That would not fly and neither should the expansion of the Port of Orcas since it is neither mandatory on a regulatory level nor necessary on a community level. We support the Port of Orcas at its current size and any limitations that means for serving larger aircraft. A larger airport in our small town would do more harm than good.
Agree with Ian!
can’t open any of the comments
Here is another excellent discussion thread about this topic on the Eastsound neighborhood social media site, with the issues succinctly summarized by Charles Toxey
https://nextdoor.com/news_feed/?post=84227629
Eastsound is already being ruined by noise from planes taking off toward the south.
My family has kept a boat slip at Brandt’s Landing Marina ever since it opened. We don’t want to lose it just so bigger planes can fly in! Why does the Port think that airplanes more important than boats? This is an island! People need access to the water!
Orcas Island already has very limited access to the water for people who don’t own waterfront property. The proposed airport expansion could take out part of one of the few marinas on the island where people who don’t have w.f. property can keep a boat. That would mean prioritizing the wants of people from off-island who want to fly in over those of us who actually live here and use the marina for our small boats. BAD way to go.
No. Just say no.
We must be firm or we shall all go mad with all the foolishness going on these sorry days. This expansion idea is insane, an ugly and horrible idea. Just say No.
I agree with ypu folks. What do we need a larger airport for anyway. Who will it benefit. Larger and more airplanes is the problem, not the solution. I dont know how we can stop all this rampant growth but we need to because we are losing our home to commercial interests. I see growth, continued growth, as a problem that needs to be stopped, just dont know how to be fair about it, or if it is possible, to stop.
So what actions should the community take to oppose and derail this crazy expansion?
As a long time North Beach resident with an office nexy door to the airport I have watched with dismay its ingress into the lives of our community. Perhaps insufficiently stressed in this excellent and righteously indignant thread is the role of the Feds (FAA) in this cascading defilement.
The big FAA money has been flowing down to community airports such as ours with far greate4r fluency since the GWOT commenced back in the early century. Bigger planes? Try the military Ospreys and TWIN ROTOR CHINOOKS doing regular flybys. Practice makes perfect.
I believe we are seeing right here in River City a slow build towards massive domestic repression. Shouldn’t the Port come clean on their relations with Homeland security apparatus?
just asking
When each of you bought your land or home near the airport wasn’t it already there? If you didn’t/don’t want to be near the airport and accept the reality that aircraft make noise and that there are safety features the FAA mandates, either move, or force it to be closed, so that Orcas won’t have any air delivery of packages, emergency evacuation, or passengers. I sense that many residents would be happier without an airport or a ferry as eliminating them both would reduce people on the island and especially those evil and pesky tourists who insist on spending money and subsidizing schools…If you don’t have your own boat you simply can’t get there. I can promise you that if you eliminate the airport and the ferry you will have the island the way many of you claim to desire. How peaceful!
Mr. Kaye….
“Keep what we have, don’t make it bigger” is a bit different than “shut it down! oh and stop the ferry too!”, I must have somehow overlooked that suggestion above.
But seriously, the argument for endless expansion and development because “tourist” and “money!” has gotten a bit tiresome. Some of us love Orcas because of what it is (or was) and protecting that is worth more that elevated property values. Others clearly are more interested in the “potential” (Money!), community and environment be damned.
If living next to a large, busy airport, surrounded by gated “communities” funded by groveling for tourist handouts sounds like an ideal environment, why ruin Orcas, there are plenty of other places that already fit the bill.
Where in this article does it say the airport is expanding for bigger aircraft? I see where it states making the runway safe (and within regulation) for the current Cessna Caravan (used by Kenmore, FedEx, and Island Air Ambulance). That sounds like a good plan to me. Or are the previous comments suggesting that it is ok to stop these services to Eastsound?
Wow…. Lots of feelings and rightfully so, this is our home! Blythe, I see your point but how did these services operate before changing to planes that are too big for our airport? Maybe they need to go back to the previous planes. Aren’t they somewhat at fault for flying planes into this airport that are not safe here? I’m pretty sure Kenmore and FedEx were here years ago. Do they need to be bigger…shouldn’t that be up to Islanders not the corporations? I like overnight delivery but I certainly don’t NEED it! Maybe the fixed wing island ambulance was not here before and that should be discussed for sure.
WHAAAAT?! This is insanity! One must question the legality of forcing a community to agree to such madness when the majority (if they only knew about it!) would be clearly against it.
Orcas Airport is at sea level, on a piece of land 1 mile wide from president’s Channel to Fishing Bay. Bad choice for an airport, with rising sea levels from climate change, and an “urban growth area’ all around it!
No one has to say, outright, that larger jets will come in; this is the unspoken story of the airport expansion that will NOT be told; but count on it. those of us with eyes and ears already see the military-issue planes and helicopters FREQUENTING the place! No one I have spoken to has even heard of this expansion because most of us working people are busy trying to survive here. Some people say they found it in the Journal (Friday Harbor’s paper!). Some say they HAVEN’T seen anything about this in the Sounder. Orcas Issues has covered it but there has been LITTLE real effort at Public outreach.
As far as I know the airports on San Juan and Lopez (with much more actual land, above sea level, surrounding their airports (IE BETTER PLANNED) are also “not in compliance” with being type “B” aircraft airports – nor do they need to be unless they too want the million bucks a year, so let’s tell the truth; all the fuss about this, against the will of the people, is B.S.
Time is short but We the People have not lost yet! More coming soon, assuming they will print it. If not, we will distribute flyers. At the very least, we need an extension for the comment period. I propose end of September.
Let’s take this fight to the top, and fight for our right to keep the airport right-sized for the tiny amount of land it sits on available to the people who have used it for many decades and more. Seizing people’s property by ’eminent domain’ is not only unfriendly and un-neighborly to locals who have been here for long times and to high density housing all around the airport (already going deaf from the NOISE); it’s a downright hostile takeover of a way of life that has served this island for decades, and even centuries.
If the Port wants that million bucks a year from the Feds, perhaps it’s time to start looking to build the airport someplace else: you’ll have plenty of money to do it!
As for Neil Kaye; As usual, your “points” and virtual “finger-wagging” are bogus. I can’t help but wonder whose paid troll you are.Comments regarded as offensive have been removed by publisher.
No carrying-capacity has been done by the county, although we have asked for it for 30 years. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that this tiny piece of land cannot take the brunt of this expansion.
Neighbors, friends, stand with me. We can flood both the port and the FAA with comments and NOT give up and roll over and let the Port do this to our community.
Any billionaires who want to fly in to their hideaways, instead of being a good neighbor and getting to know some of us on the ferries, here’s a suggestion: grab yourself some land – the island is being pimped out for top dollar anyway – then build your own helipad on your own land (and see how your rich (and some unfortunate working class) neighbors high on the hills around you like the noise! Bet they won’t!
Expansion of Eastsound airport is a terrible idea and I’m having a hard time comprehending how this made it to a “plan”.
We are year-round residents on the island. We like to consider ourselves part of the community, not tourists or temporary. How will expanding the airport help our COMMUNITY? It will probably help the economy a little during tourist season or for super rich to come up and buy some produce when they fly their JET into town for the weekend, but it’s not helping 95% of the residents.
As there are many people here with second homes (and many more seem to be moving in), they don’t contribute to the every-day community and economy. Opening up for larger aircraft will bring the larger private planes & private jets, increasing noise & creating a not-necessary-oversized private (though public) port for people with too much money, not to mention destroying the lands currently around the airport. What is the point of this? Is there something “wrong” with our little airport? None that I or anyone I’ve spoken to can see.
I do have to leave the island for work frequently, and I use the airport. If I can’t get a seat or weather is bad, I take the ferry and the Airporter shuttle. Yes, it’s a haul, but I read a book or talk to someone on the bus and it’s a small price to pay to live here with our small, happy little airport.
If we, the people of Orcas, do not want more land to be destroyed, more noise, more VRBOs, more unaffordable housing for working people, or simply ugly expansion to accommodate a very small few, say “NO” to this idea.
Please remember to comment at: https://www.portoforcas.com/master-plan/
A petition is now available islanders, come in & sign ASAP at Score! Nifty Thrifty, Mon-Sat 11-4
Isn’t the question “what changed?” to make the Kenmore aircraft in use during the summer for as long as we’ve been here suddenly dangerous? It sounds like the FAA has some “best practices” guidelines that we’ve never met. Must we meet them? Is there no exemption option, no grandfathering? As I understand it, it’s not necessary for bigger planes; it’s to accommodate what we already have been doing for a decade or more and now is deemed insufficient for safety. I’m not aware of any accidents resulting from the current separation of runway and taxiway. What would happen if we choose not to change the alignment? Would we lose federal grants necessary for maintaining the airport? If so, is it an amount that we could fundraise to replace?
Some of our government entities have (or had) a tendency to grab as much grant money as is available and force us to live with the urbanized “strings” attached. If there are alternatives, we should know what they are. The airport seems to this frequent user to be both safe and island-appropriate already.
P.S. I wish folks would stop claiming that people with second homes here don’t contribute to the economy or the community. First, they pay full property taxes but use few services; our taxes are lower as a result. Second, they patronize island businesses like caretaking and construction and, of course, while they are here, restaurants and markets.
P.S. Continued. And many, many “summer” residents contribute much to the community.
i think the issue, for me, is not who uses the airport as much as what happens when we reach 10,000 enplanements. First of all, the federal monies given jump from $150,000 a year to $1 million a year. With the huge jump in the military budget, more navy growlers and sonar testing to hurt the already harassed and starving resident orcas, and with the terrible road project cutting right through Eastsound Swale – it all adds up to these questions:
1) Once the port takes the money, this airport will change category from a local non-primary airport to a Primary National airport, according to the FAA. See here:
2) As Peg Manning and others have wondered, what strings come attached with that money and re-designation? “Homeland Security?” Customs and Immigration? Forced airport expansion and worse?
3) Given the geographical limitations of Eastsound Basin UGA (1 mile wide from sea to sea, at sea level, and already surrounded by developments here for a long time), do we have the LAND capacity for this expansion?
4) Will the new airport designation make it a MANDATE to expand the airport infrastructure and make “eminent domain” (taking land from people forcibly if they won’t sell) a probability?
5) IS there already a deal in place between the Port and homeland security or military entities? That worries me far more than small jets
6) Will they pay for hearing loss tests for those of us at Lavender Hollow who are going deaf from the noise of planes flying 15 feet from our roofs? Will they also pay for our hearing aids?
7) Traffic nightmares! Who in their right MIND is for closing and re-routing Mt. Baker Rd to be a detour loop through the LAST of Eastsound Swale?
8) My experience with this county and now, the airport is, “if they get the money, they WILL build.” so why waste our time if this is just us pissing in the wind and having NO say in the outcome?
These questions need to be answered honestly and transparently by the Port.
oops: forgot the link to the FAA site talking about enplanements and airport categories:
https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/categories/
P.S. – anyone planning to go to the regular Port meeting (normally the 2nd Thurs of each month) will be disappointed to know that they had the meeting a week early and there is NO Port meeting this Thursday. Please get your comments in BEFORE the 13th; Alternate 1 is no build. All other alternatives suggest re-routing Mt. Baker Road and take some land, and possibly some boat slips, away from Brandt’s landing
Send your comments today!?! Here is the petition, anyone can make their own, & it’s available for signature at Score!
The petition reads: We the undersigned oppose expansion of Eastsound Airport The Port’s proposal process lacks transparency, sufficient public outreach and time for us to understand and digest the huge impacts on our town by this proposal. We propose that the July 13 deadline be pushed back to September, and that the Port stall ANY work on their “preferred plan” until all comments are analyzed by a fair and impartial advisory group. The outcome needs to be dictated by what the Public wants — not by Port officials wanting a 6+ fold increase in annual Federal monies.
CORRECTION:
The Airport would not likely become a “National” airport. It would become a “primary” airport – likely local or regional – and is already part of the NPIAS – National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems – and being so close to the Canadian border, could, as such, be part of a larger militarization plan for the area. Not saying “IS” but the dots seem to connect in a straight line, along with the whopping federal increase in the military budget and the latest press release from NAS Whidbey.
No Expansion – Alternative 1 is the only option that would protect us and be right-sized for this community AND the available land mass; but know that this issue will not easily go away, once the monies are available to the Port.
Great comments..Plenty of food for thought.It is hard to keep track of the goings on at the airport when I am not a frequent flyer nor a pilot. I do live in walking distance of the airport and am aware of many planes coming and going much like a regular train schedule..more noticeable in August
Cannot believe that accommodating bigger aeronautical vehicles would enhance the lives of Eastsound residents.
This is an incredibly poor idea. What is the FAA trying to turn our island into? The airport is currently more than adequately sized to handle all the air traffic that we could possibly want for the next several generations.
Time to move the airport! Crow Valley or McNallie Rd./Schaefer Stretch area.
(Edited for civility) Who cares if some of the best farmland on the island is paved over…we can always just buy food at costco instead of from our local farmers.
Luther, …and you don’t think the airport’s land was good farmland?? That’s kind of the thing with airports: they need to be on flat land. Hard to find on Orcas. So maybe Eastsound wasn’t the best location for the urban growth designation; it doesn’t make much sense to put a town right under an airport runway approach.
This looks like another, crucial step in the Aspenization of Orcas Island. Some of us old enough can remember when that was a peaceful, beautiful mountain village turned quaint ski resort. Now only millionaires can afford to live there, and ordinary people like my brother and sister-in-law have to live down the valley in Basalt and commute to work. As someone who lives within earshot of Orcas Island Airport, I can already hear the roar of the Lear jets that will be taking off there.
So there are about 33 comments so far and perhaps 2 of them are somewhat supportive of the airport. If this is really the sentiment of the people, why not close the airport and reclaim the land? Is there really a need for people to fly to Orcas? Just take the ferry. You would eliminate all of the noise as well as the risk of aviation and jet fuel spills/fires. You could designate the land “forever wild” and prohibit any building and insist the land be left to nature. Many islands rely on ambulance boats and have no airstrips for planes and prohibit helicopters because they too make noise.
Orcas can easily turn back the hands of time which is what so many seem to want to do. Other things would be to raise the price of the ferry significantly to keep people away-even a fare of 100/person and 200/car each way would work. Closing down the grocery stores is also a highly effective way to depopulate an island. Getting rid of public water, electric, and Internet would have the effect of taking Orcas back to where it was in the 1920’s when it was rural and quaint.
Be careful what you wish for though…
Neil, you miss the point. None of these comments are against the airport. We just don’t want a great big expanded airport located there!
(Comments regarded as offensive by publisher have been removed)
THANKS for reprinting this article. CORRECTION: the Port website says comments are due BY the 13th, not on the 13th – I read that as Thursday. I’m asking for an extension, given how few people even know about it, and I encourage others to do the same.
What is obvious to me, and hopefully, will be to the Dept of Ecology AND the Feds, is that the land mass is itself (reiterating for the thousandth time!) only one mile wide, at sea level, with no solid soil beneath. (the soil here is “Mukilteo mud” – it liquifies in an earthquake of, say 8 richter scale).
This narrow land bridge between two ‘mountains’ with ocean on both sides North and South, cannot bear what will be asked of it with the continued expansion and glut of development. People’s long-time lands, homes, and businesses surround the airport closely, since the airport has bought up all lands to ensure that it had it. Why should the Port be allowed to take more land? There IS no more land to take without eminent domain – and then what? You can’t have it both ways, a UGA and an ever-expanding land-grabbing airport – not on THIS land, Eastsound Basin.
Friday Harbor is much more suited for this kind of airport growth and change in designation. It’s the County Seat, and has customs already with the Sydney ferry run. Or shall we just move the UGA out of the way of the airport? I think plenty of people would take issue with that! If only they knew about the proposed expansion.
Just so everyone knows, that project last year that tore down some beautiful trees, put a short stretch of road in on the East airport perimeter for emergency responders, another taxiway, and two box drains, cost over 2 million dollars and is rumored to have gone over-budget… so i guess a million bucks a year doesn’t go that far, considering an expansion of this scope.
This airport paved over a peat bog – the rarest kind of wetland there is, downgraded for protection by the County when it threw out Army Corps designations and went for “site-specific” (someday i will write a guest ed about that!), as was/is Eastsound Swale. Now this expansion wants to put a ROAD through the last of the Swale, where the “vegetation/obstruction” removal was along the trail, take more trees from McPeake(formerly Lavender Farm) property, run North-South from Enchanted Road. (at Orion Lane/Lavender Hollow Apts and near Christian School) to Mount Baker Road, for a lot more tiedowns in that field and traffic nightmares as yet unimagined – and take boat slips and the road-in to Brandt’s Landing (the ditch), and many other properties to the North and East.
I’ll leave the farmland issue alone for now; that warrants a different discussion.
It’s time to put our collective foot down and say a loud and clear, and sustained, NO MORE – to airport expansion and to cutting down forests in the UGA for air b&b’s and vacay rentals; these two issues ARE related. ENOUGH!
The port website says the public meeting to review the plan is July 26 at 3:30 at the fire station. There needs to be a large out pouring
of people and opposition.
I am unable to access https://www.portoforcas.com/master-plan/… not sure why
Just get a question mark and no access to any of the topics on the site?
An interesting development: The Port just updated its website sometime after this weekend. Now, the current commissioners and contact numbers are posted; they were not. The minutes from 2016-2018 are all posted, with working links: they were not. 2015’s links still say 2016 when you open that year. All the links are still broken. The Master Plan Update wording has changed to something appearing more benign, saying comments are welcomed all along the process. But if you carefully read the press release in the Sounder, and read between the lines, I wonder how much We the Public, I’m betting about 90% or higher against – can really effect. Seems like a “done deal” to me when you read the language. Still, I wholeheartedly encourage the Public to keep signing petitions as well as making your comments on the proposed alternatives.
Although I appreciate the Port updating its website after enough Public pushback, my question to the Port and Manaager is this: why was this website not updated all along? How is there supposed to be transparent Public Process if there’s nothing currrent, and up until this week, no one even knew who the current commissioners were, or could find minutes?
There is to be a Public Meeting with the commissioners on the 26th of this month; The comment period was extended for two more weeks to just after the Public Meeting on the 26th – which I still feel is NOT enough time. Keep saying so in your comments to DOWL if you agree.
Neil Kaye: You’ve intentionally misstated the concerns of the commenters to create a straw man. We LIKE our airport. We want the same service that has existed for the past decade to remain: small prop general aviation and commercial service from Kenmore and San Juan Air. For a decade, Kenmore has been flying Caravans into Eastsound (though if I recall correctly, usually only in the summer; the rest of the year it flies the smaller planes). Why suddenly is a change required? The Caravans haven’t changed. The airport hasn’t changed. And our population using the airport is not likely to change much. Despite the general hand-wringing about island population, it is growing very slowly.
To recap, we like the airport the way it’s been for at least a decade and want to know why the island life should be disrupted as planned?
Peg, I appreciate your correction. I certainly didn’t intend to create a “straw man” argument. But, your view that people love the airport and services as they are wasn’t coming through at all. I think it would be great to hear/read more support from people on Orcas for having a successful, active, airport and all that it provides. IMHO, most of the comments still sound pretty down on aviation and some go as far as suggesting that aviation increases the “dreaded” tourism that supports Orcas.
Just wanted people to know that the deadline for comments has been extended to August 3rd.
From The Master Plan site:
June Public Open House
The second Public Open House was held Tuesday, June 5th at 1pm – 2pm and 5pm – 6:30pm at the Orcas Island Fire & Rescue 45 Lavender Lane, Eastsound, Wash. Project team members discussed the project, inventory, facility requirements, aviation forecast, and preliminary alternatives. Public comment regarding the alternatives has been extended thru August 3, 2018. All comments received by August 3 will be considered in the development of the preferred alternative.
My partner and I use Kenmore Air regularly. We fly into Rosario during good weather and leave from
Eastsound airport on the very Cessna Caravan that is supposed to be problematic given the airport’s existing infrastructure.
In fact, we flew out of Eastsound within the last 10 days. Never a problem. I’m grateful for the airport; it certainly makes getting on and off the island convenient; it adds another level of experience as well. Like having a small boat to get in and around cays, nearby islands and inlets, experiencing the islands from the air is magical.
Still, that being said, when flying out of Eastsound we always sense the same fear just below the excitement: will this lead to the end of Orcas’ rural character down the road? If so, we’d forfeit commercial air service altogether. But, it shouldn’t have to come to that.
As it stands now, the service provided in and out of Eastsound airport would seem to be at the limit of that which is necessary to retain the island’s small town rural character.
What could be next? Larger planes? Small or mid-size jets? That’s the concern.
As New Yorkers we come off the assembly line a bit cynical and jaded. We also think being direct (even forward) is an admirable trait. After all, what’s there to hide if it’s all good. Of course, privacy has its benefits, too, but not if its purpose is to deceive in the name of greed.
So, I have to be direct and ask the all-too-obvious question?
What are the real reasons for the renovations?
Is it merely to accommodate existing use? That’s it? Really?
Or are these the beginnings of a disguised attempt to turn the island into a Nantucket-like destination for small jets or larger prop planes with all the excess that comes with a monied “theme park” lifestyle?
I hope I’m not being too direct but that would be my real concern above all else.
There have been some recent large scale investments on the Island; movement is afoot. Is this simply part of some larger conversion to what many would consider a regression in Orcas’s rural character?
My gut says the airport works just fine as is.
Yes. Exactly. Option #1. No build.
Neil Kaye, you are hearing/reading from people on Orcas
Island. Why can’t you hear what they are saying?
I urge everyone to find where there is a petition to sign, such as at Score! Nifty Thrifty in the Eastsound post office building.
Louellen, what I am hearing is that people on Orcas don’t want any enlargement to the airport. They also have a grave concern that Orcas will become Nantucket or Aspen or other places which would never be possible for many reasons cited in earlier posts on those topics. They don’t want the quaint and rural character ever to change; they don’t really want tourists or 2nd home owners; they want affordable health care; they want to protect the environment; and they want lots of great services and conveniences inexpensively and without any of downsides to these modern parts of life. Why do you think I am deaf?
Neil,
I certainly understand your position of finding a happy medium between development and the status quo; but most all second homeowners we know who spend winters away in other homes (thus, are well off enough to maintain that amount of flexibility) want the rural quality of life that exists now on Orcas to remain as much as possible as it is; we believe this is very possible with intelligent and fair-minded stewards and residents at the helm whose main focus is on maintining / improving the island’s existing infrastructure: roads, fiber inlay, OPALCO, maintenance of the commercial structures downtown, a greater roll out and reliance on cleaner energy, good schools, farming and farmers, and supporting establishments like Black Dog Farm and its “honor” self-service system in providing fresh produce (and other farms and farmers who trust we Orcasinians to be honest in our unmonitored interactions with them). These are just some of the many examples that describe a rural yet intelligent and balanced approach towards preservation.
Recently a large purchase happened on the island that is investment in nature coupled with additional purchases of strategic and centrally located commercial real estate in downtown Eastsound by a related party (don’t assume related is limited to familial). In and of itself there is nothing amiss with this development. One hopes the purpose of the commercial property purchases are passive income investments and maintenance of the cherished buildings in question is what can be expected going forward—certainly a good thing.
But given example after example of what has transpired in other venues nationwide, there are reasons for caution.
The point: there is a way forward in updating, modernizing and maintaining the current commercial footprint in Eastsound and there is a tax base that understands the costs associated with same; the recent funding of the library’s new and impressive edition as well as the new medical services infrastructure to be funded via property taxes are examples of improving the quality of life without altering the Island’s rural character or tearing away at it. Most of the homeowners I know, even part-timers, understand this bargain and exchange and have deliberately opted for Orcas precisely because of its priorities.
This is at least how I’m understanding the balance between development and maintaining/improving the status quo.
Hope this helps to clarify what I think is the prevailing message.
Chris, your thoughtful and carefully worded response is much appreciated and reflects the people and tenor Orcas that I have experienced on all my trips there. It’s exactly why we have looked at retiring there. Although we are a bit worried that newcomers aren’t always welcome and are seen as another unnecessary carbon footprint…I grew up on a farm and understand what rural is. We lived for 7 years on a disappearing (sinking) island of 700 people and are very environmentally conscious. But, I try to make my decisions based on facts and data and not only emotions. And I admit I did chuckle with the suggestion that just moving the airport to Crow Valley would be the answer. That smacks of NIMBY (not in my back yard) thinking that we have here in the “USA” and never expected to encounter from the progressive thinking people on Orcas… I value and appreciate the clear, open, and respectful dialogue with all of you, as if I am lucky, we will be actual neighbors some day. I would be foolish to make enemies even before I might be allowed to purchase there.
Neil,
I for one look forward to your family’s relocation as do I’m sure many others. Not that my opinion matters but I’ve noted your comments and varying points of views over many months and they’re clearly coming from an intelligent and well-intentioned place. Neighbors and friends of this quality are a lot to ask for and Orcas seems unusally lucky in this regard. I’m consistently impressed by the number of caring and thoughtful people on Orcas. No place is perfect but relatively speaking it’s darn close.
Neil–We are only able to live here and still work because of the airport. I have no problem with it as it is. (The airport overlay was a bit much, but that’s water under the bridge.) I know of no one who bought or moved into property affected by the airport before the airport was built, and therefore made the choice knowing general aviation of the small plane variety was nearby. It is an important public facility.
The problem is that virtually any expansion will require major changes, including eminent domain takings of property, perhaps a rerouting of a road that could end up the only east-west road we have (there is a proposal to shut down Crescent Beach Rd. to create a park), and a shiny new terminal. (Our terminal is a real favorite of family and friends who visit.)
Look at the little wooden bridge in Deer Harbor. It was replaced at a cost of close to $3 million and would have looked a lot like an I-5 overpass had there not been some modifications to the original replacement design.
I suggest that the Port put a measure on the ballot. I would like many of these major revisions to be put on the ballot, because it is difficult for working folks to keep up with all the committees and entities having business-hour meetings to develop and act on proposals for substantial change.
And please do come to Orcas. There is a lot of room left. It changed our lives for the better. I choose to make allowances for tourists, as they support businesses and homeowners on the island; I really appreciate second-home owners, because they pay full freight in taxes yet use few tax-supported services, thereby keeping our taxes down. (I’ve never understood the hostility myself.)
Peg and Chris, I’m smiling broadly and thank you both immensely. I forgot to mention, I am also a helicopter pilot, so I do know a lot about small airports and the communities around them, and agree that this is an important issue requiring much reflection.
What are the real reasons for the renovations?
Is it merely to accommodate existing use? That’s it? Really?
— Yes, really, to meet the safety standards for the aircraft that currently use the airport
I want to be clear about the completely misleading title of this article that has put everyone into orbit.
1) In all of the alternatives, the overall length of our pavement associated with the runway gets SHORTER, even as we change part of it from “Blast Pad” to “Displaced Threshold.” That’s right folks – SHORTER
2) Even at the most extensive, our airport remains smaller than Friday Harbor in every way.
3) All of these improvements are to achieve or get closer to achieving the safety standards for the current aircraft.
4) If Mt Baker Rd were moved (highly unlikely due to environmental, cost, etc.) to get the road out of the Runway Protection Zone, the FAA would never allow us to later extend the runway and bring the road back into the RPZ. Moving Mt Baker Rd is an alternative under consideration only to ensure safety of the runway in it’s current location. – I have one first-person report of a truck that was hit by a plane on Mt Baker Rd…it shouldn’t be where it is.
I have heard some concerns about the July 26 meeting being at 3:30 PM. –
1) Call me or stop by to discuss
2) Send me your questions or comments
3) I will try to have a follow-on “Listening Session” (that cannot be a “meeting”) with two commissioners on the evening of the 26th
I scheduled the meeting at 3;30pm because I work a second job that night from 6PM to 6AM.
There seems to be a lot of concern about the Port using eminent domain. While we theoretically have the power to do so, every commissioner I have ever worked with has expressed strongly their commitment to never even considering it. — It is anathema to everything they and I stand for. I hold strongly that property rights are the foundation of American’s rights and our culture. We are not the Big Dig or the 3rd Runway in Seattle.
Would we consider negotiating purchase or buying at market if neighboring parcels of interest went up for sale in the next 20 to 40 years? Sure, but the reality is, even with Federal funding, we lack the finances to do so without a Bond/Levy, which would go to the voters. — So, we are virtually assured of NEVER doing eminent domain and can’t afford to buy anything.
Neil, you’ve been saying for years that you’re moving to Orcas. Welcome! Newcomers and tourists will come here for the same reason the rest of us are here. I make my meager living off of them, too.
I like flying; I like an airport. I just don’t like not being able to talk or listen in Eastsound while planes take off. Obviously, there is a better place for the airport. Cities and towns everywhere are moving their airports to more outlying areas. Will Orcas? Probably not, because of the NIMBYism you speak of, only you got it reversed!
I beg to differ about the title of this article being misleading; it’s not at all misleading. What has been misleading is the Port’s complete lack of transparency to the Public and the affected landowners and dense populations living around the airport – starting with the “Obstruction Removal Project’s devastating impacts which created further safety problems for both pilots and the waterfowl drawn to the standing water in winter, trashing a forested wetland, and the project’s direct link to a planned expansion and a road going through Eastsound Swale where the trees were removed – this was/is part and parcel of this planned expansion. We were not told. I even asked; so I’m not inclined to believe these words, and I’m not inclined to believe that the port has been transparent or fair with us, since (and others can back me on this) – up until this WEEK, there were no minutes on the website, nor could we even know who the current commissioners are.
I want to know: who makes the final decisions? Tony Simpson or the Port Commissioners? How much of our collective Public “NO” will inform this decision – ie – are we pissing in the wind and the Port will choose its “preferred option” (forced expansion) anyway? Will the Port meeting give people a chance to comment and question? How much of that time will be devoted to listening to us and answering our concerns and questions, being willing to compromise?
We do not need an expansion. It not only is incompatible with surrounding land uses and our SubArea Plan, it is not wanted by the great majority of people who even know about it.
Low income residents of Lavender Hollow are already impacted. How does Mr. Simpson think the residents here, and the children of the Christian School will be impacted by these sweeping changes which include more environmental destruction, more risks for the residents of this apartment complex, more deafening noise to our already deafened residents, more horrible traffic problems by re-routing a road that is a major collector, through a wetland that the people of Eastsound UGA value and need, and connecting that road with our housing project, which WILL force Orion Lane to become a through-road to A-Street?
The cessnas being used now are the SMALLEST aircraft used in the B-2 category airport. The largest wingspans are much wider than these cessnas; let’s at least tell the truth; it won’t stop at these smallest planes in this category. Whose word do we have – and for how long – and based on the already egregious damage to the Swale (still not “mitigated,” why should we trust any words from the Port or its manager?
Wider runways also affect surrounding landowners, including another high density housing project to the west, and the taking of lands people do not want to forefeit, even for money, and certainly not through eminent domain.
We do not accept the reasons or the methods of this expansion. We will fight it.
I would feel a lot more comfortable, after reading Tony Simpson’s comments above, if these “alternatives” for expansion presented were just what had to be done for the Master Plan, and not serious considerations, and with the knowledge that Alternative 1 – no build – is the only option that the Port would consider.
I do have a question, though. Is this the Master Plan that is required every 20 years, or simply a late 5-year update?
If it’s “merely” the 5 year update, will we be revisiting this scenario in another 5 years, or can we admit that expansion of the airport is incompatible for this size of land and surrounding land uses?
Thanks Dan. Originally aging/ill parents prevented a move so far away (we’re in Delaware.) Then, we tried to buy on Orcas three times, and each time just didn’t have enough money. The cost of housing there is very high, but you know that. I’m afraid that the economy has turned and prices are going up, making it increasingly less likely that we will ever be able to afford to move there. But, I enjoy reading about Orcas daily thanks to the Internet and following what is going on. I do play the lottery occasionally and maybe…
In all fairness to Tony Simpson, I am thankful for his willingness to discuss things here, in print, and to accommodate our comments, concerns, and questions, including setting up an evening “listening” meeting with two commissioners. I know that he is an exemplary firefighter and does a lot of other things for the community; this is not some personal vendetta – it is to hold all of our people in official capacities accountable to the Public need and wishes; that is all.
I am hard-line about transparency and protecting the Swale and the interests of both landowners and low income residents, because from experience with this project thus far, and so many others that have destroyed the Swale piecemeal, I do have a lot of “skin in the game” – and I think people need to know their wants will be honored – not be run over roughshod with yet another project too big for this narrow land bridge UGA, where the bulk of our population, by mandate, must live.
I hope many working people will take up Tony’s generous offer and attend the evening meeting.
Thank you, Anthony, for your most recent comments.
I don’t know you personally but I take it that you’re a good point person with respect to these proposals and I believe I just learned that you’re a firefighter, the opinions of whom I admit I’m biased favorably towards in matters of safety.
Thank you for being a first responder!
To be honest as much as I care about what happens on Orcas as a property owner, I’m not at that retirement stage of life yet but instead run a business full time which absorbs all of it. Accordingly, I don’t comment here as much as I would otherwise like. Nevertheless, I’ll find the time to study the proposals better. I based much of my prior comment on the content of the comments posted here thus far.
With that qualifier laid to bare, I believe there’s an important difference between “need” and “want.” Who it is that really “wants” the larger capacity and why strikes me as a must know answer.
It would seem the majority living in and around Eastsound neither need nor want an expansion. Why? I think you can piece together a pictorial collage using the varied poetry and expressiveness in all of these comments including Joseph Murphy’s separate editorial on the matter to very colorfully answer that question.
I’m pragmatic as I suspect are most others reading this digital newspaper. Can we clearly insert the reasons for the “need?” If you don’t mind, can you refine just a bit some of the rationale for the following questions:
1. Which planes in fact currently using the airport are problematic? Is it just the Cessna Caravan which I fly out on when available? Are there other planes that are wanting to be introduced into service that currently do not use the airport? If so, which ones and for what purpose? Are they “needed” and is this need greater than the cost and needs of the majority of residents?
2. How does keeping the status quo negatively impact the conduct of business on and off the island by Orcas residents?
3. Has the use of the airport been in violation of federal law? Or is it something less than that and which allows for a fairly wide margin and discretion in terms of interpreting what’s safe? How long has this presumed improper use been in effect?
Getting back to “need vs want,” if the majority of residents including those who rely on and “need” the airport to conduct business are able to do so effectively now, and if the plane(s) which may or may not create the concerns expressed by the Port of Orcas are not indispensable in that regard, why not simply have the airport live within its current means?
Clearly, many (perhaps a majority) do not want an alteration to the existing footprint and if for some reason the “discretion” being employed now suddenly finds a problem with both the past and current use of the airport, why not simply remove the type of planes from the list which can use the airport (which were apparently fine till’ now but for some reason are no longer being operated safely)?
For many residents (perhaps a majority), the costs clearly outweigh the apparent marginal increase in benefits.
We usually fly on smaller Kenmore planes than the Caravan anyways. It won’t impact commuters much if we’re inconvenienced in this way and, again, it’s costs vs benefit even if it does or would.
When you look at the costs in the quality of life to be paid by the islands’ residents including, perhaps, the chipping away at the island’s rural character by said expansion and compare them against the “seemingly” insignificant benefits to the islands’ residents, it begs the question: why not tailor the airport’s use to the island’s preferred need?
The above asymmetry is why it’s not too great a leap (and strains ones credulity in fact) in wondering if something else is percolating behind the scenes of this delayed discovery and urgency.
Thanks for any clarifications you can offer. In the meantime, I’ll study the proposals more closely.
Chris Graham
1. Which planes in fact currently using the airport are problematic? Is it just the Cessna Caravan which I fly out on when available? Are there other planes that are wanting to be introduced into service that currently do not use the airport? If so, which ones and for what purpose? Are they “needed” and is this need greater than the cost and needs of the majority of residents? — It is the Caravan. There are no other aircraft that these improvements would support that would be more likely to be introduced. As I’ve stated, the overall pavement length gets SHORTER, which is why “Expansion” really is a misleading characterization.
2. How does keeping the status quo negatively impact the conduct of business on and off the island by Orcas residents? — The status quo, or option 1, is Very Likely to result in the end of federal funding. The infrastructure of the airport will continue to deteriorate and will not be replaceable, when needed, without an extreme increase in local funding. The commissioners and I strongly lean toward the less extreme alternatives, but there is risk in taking a minimalist approach because the FAA’s long-term goal is full compliance with safety standards. So, for example, moving the taxiway a minimal amount, at a significant cost, may see the FAA come back 5 years later to pressure moving it to full separation. This is the scenario being realized in Friday Harbor, with, acknowledged, some real differences in real estate, terrain, environmental, etc.
3. Has the use of the airport been in violation of federal law? Or is it something less than that and which allows for a fairly wide margin and discretion in terms of interpreting what’s safe? How long has this presumed improper use been in effect? I wouldn’t characterize it as violating federal law, but federal funding is contingent upon meeting or making efforts to meet established federal safety standards. However, there is not much latitude. The standard is the standard and “Modifications to Standards” are issued for 5 years at a time, but the expectation is that you attempt to become compliant where it is possible.
If you fly on smaller Kenmore planes than the Caravan, it’s not from the Airport, but perhaps from float planes and there is nothing wrong with that… but it has weather limitations. Perhaps you actually fly with other Charter carriers, but Kenmore only has Caravans in the wheel business now.
The update cycle for master plans is 5 years, but typically, and in our case, a full master plan is not revisited for 10 years.
I really like it when people come talk to me instead of leveling accusations in comments. Really, I do.
We have been transparent. We mailed everyone on Orcas Island and invited your participation and “Constant Contact” by email with notifications of meetings that only about 15 people attended. We’ve added members to our advisory committee who are stakeholders and can contribute meaningfully.
The tree removal has made the airport significantly safer and every pilot agrees to that fact. It had nothing to do with the Master Plan.
We extend the comment period by 3 weeks, add a special meeting at cost to the taxpayer == I get complaints about the timing and only having one week beyond the meeting to comment. The reality is that if your comment comes in on the 4th or the 5th or even probably the 10th, we’re going to include it and consider it, but this is a project on a timeline…that I’ve already extended. — We’ll probably even consolidate the comments here that echo back and forth.
I invite comment and phone calls to me and 1 person comes to see me. One. 3 emails. Three. 1 phone call. One. It really is easier to have a conversation in person and with access to the visual aids, all of which I’ve given away, but more are on the way and we can look at them on a computer, together.
And no, I’m not always at the airport. Call me at 376-5285 or 360-317-6579 and I’ll talk to you, call you back or arrange an appointment…mostly to accommodate your schedule.
You want transparency?…there is my personal cell phone number.
The Port of Orcas Master Plan website has two NEW documents available for review to help better explain the various requirements of the FAA, alternatives, pros and cons to each alternative, and more descriptions. I encourage you to each review these documents prior to commenting or attending the July 26th special meeting being held by the Port. I also encourage you to email your specific questions to orcasmasterplan@dowl.com so that the Project team and the Port will be prepared to have specific answers to your questions at that meeting. A FAQ page and copies of the alternatives will be available at the meeting.
https://www.portoforcas.com/master-plan/
Thank you, Anthony. Your comments are on point, relevant and very helpful. I’ve also come to learn that fedex and other services use the B2 classified planes as well. It would seem that the least intrusive modifications that would qualify the airport for continued federal support are worthy of serious consideration. Your earlier email seemed to hint at this. Again, thank you for taking the time to add this important perspective.
correction: your earlier “comment,” not email.
*Transparency – Regarding the flier that was sent out: It indicated a ‘Master Plan’ would be discussed. There was no indication that any plans included options to more than double the size of the airport. If you did go to the 1st meeting DOWL provided a verbal description and an outline and at the second meeting a verbal description and copies of maps. If you couldn’t make the meetings you couldn’t access the information. There were no maps showing that expansion posted on the Port’s website until after the June public meeting when the Port had to be asked for them to be posted. If this Orcas Issues article had not been published, and those concerned had not commented on it, far fewer Orcas residents would be aware of the Port’s alternative plans. I do greatly appreciate Tony explaining things on this forum. It is public engagement, and while I’m sure one-on-one interactions could be more comfortable, many more people benefit from seeing comments here.
*Most Definitely Expansion – Alternatives showing more than doubling the size of the airport is an expansion any way you look at it. The Port has been buying land around it for the last several years, mostly Service/Light Industrial and Residential land that contributes to the residential feel of the neighborhoods they are in. The very obvious expansion alternatives would add tens of acres to the airport proper, more than doubling its size, moving in closer to neighborhoods, expanding to the North Beach and removing currently residential land from neighborhoods. That is called encroachment. I doubt many people would mind if the Port wanted to add a warehouse here and there, but Doubling in size?… with hangars and terminals and airport parking literally across the street from homes and places of worship on the corner of North Beach Road and Mount Baker Road? It would be recklessly bad community planning to allow that to happen, and it is no wonder that people who live and worship and educate their children there are uneasy about the Port moving Eastward to such an important intersection, the very gateway to the North Beach neighborhood where the largest population (especially children) of Eastsound lives and walks into town.
*Regarding Funding – Many local residents would rather pay for airport maintenance on a small airport than allow the FAA to fund a much larger one where it grows and grows and we have little control over its expansion.
(*Regarding Funding – Many local residents would rather pay for airport maintenance on a small airport than allow the FAA to fund a much larger one where it grows and grows and we have little control over its expansion.)
This final point bares highlighting and is easily overlooked, Charles. Thank you for making it.
I’ve read up on the proposals. No substantial change means no substantial impact. We can live much happier as island residents without the proposed expansions.
Honestly, the costs to the community, the destruction of remaining Eastsound wetlands, a creeping sprawl each inch of which is hostile to human habitation—none of this makes any sense. Again, who is this for? Surely, not the current residents of Orcas. And, surely, not a future projection of “need” that relies on erroneous assumptions right out of the box.
Let the need arise first. It won’t. The future is one with less human-based employment. Current projections nationally are, generally, very poorly informed. Further, the overall “decreasing”
need for an increase in this type of infrastructure build-out, the island’s limited physical size, its zoning laws, and its lack of mainland-level resources make it a very poor magnet for job seekers and those looking for career advancement. Let’s not “create” a need that doesn’t and won’t exist and goes against the defining rural qualities of Orcas Island. That’s the textbook definition of poor planning or shooting oneself in the foot.
Coupled with a reality that the next twenty years will see a rapid acceleration in automation and AI replacement of human labor, this proposed increase in size and functionality of the airport is actually quite gross in its excess.
Intelligent progress today is defined by doing more with less. It’s not simply a “carbon” footprint issue (though this is the greatest threat before us realistically), improving technology challenges the very notion that “bigger is better!” On so many tangible levels, “bigger IS NOT better.”
Again, there is no “need” for the expansion(s) proposed. I ask again: Who is this for?
The island can make do with its existing airport— “maintained” as necessary without substantial changes that would redefine its “limited purpose and the role” it plays in our lives.
We can proactively take and make decisions to shape the island’s future, one that conforms both in terms of our future “realistic” needs and our “explicit” well-defined desire for a quality and type of living not found on the mainland.
This expansion may be a “want” of a few people but it is in direct conflict with common sense and the very reasons that define Orcas’ rural character. There is little to zero “need” for the expansions as proposed.
Legal and non-legal actions can be taken to prevent the expansions and their impact on the island and the community immediately effected.
We can and should say No!
I hope I didn’t wake anybody up last night at Midnight when I flew a patient off Orcas. I’d sure appreciate a safety compliant airport at Midnight on a moon-less night when I’m flying off a fellow Orcas Islander.
Tony, as a fellow pilot I hear you and applaud your professionalism, remarkable training and currency training. Flying at night over water is extremely difficult and dangerous and one can easily and quickly get disoriented. Your skills are a real asset to Orcas.
Thank you for your service to our community, Tony. We all appreciate you and the other pilot volunteers and EMS who help islanders in their time of need.
Tony–Are you saying that our airport is currently unsafe? I didn’t realize that anyone could fly at midnight. Was the helicopter unavailable? What is the current level of funding from the FAA?
My frustration with our constant chasing of federal funding is that the accompanying restrictions have been “wagging the dog” of roads and bridges here as it is.
Could you tell us how many takeoffs/landings (not sure which you count for these purposes) the airport has in the average month?
Did you say that a truck was hit by a plane on orcas island??
I, too, echo the previous comments and can’t say enough about how grateful we are for all of the island’s first responders.
Since the subject has been raised, Island Air Ambulance and Airlift Northwest are two very inexpensive insurance policies ($39/year or $79 for two years with Northwest) that everyone on the island should purchase.
The cost for this invaluable coverage is insignificant versus the uninsured cost of airlifting you off the island to a mainland hospital (I’ve heard about bills north of $40k).
Both policies should be maintained as you can’t select which service will be availae in times of emergencies.
If you think your current medical insurance covers this sort of expense I’d think again and revisit the fine print.
Again, as I said in my first comment to you, Tony, thak you for being a first responder…we’re all at the mercy of professionals like yourself and I can’t overstate your importance to the community.
Peg,
As to Safety: Although you can view “Safe/Unsafe” as a binary qualifier, in reality it is a continuum. You can’t ever be totally safe, but you can probably be totally unsafe. On a binary scale, our airport is not “unsafe,” but it isn’t as safe as it could be or should be, from my perspective as a pilot, manager and professional with 25-ish years of safety discipline experience.
The decision about helicopter vs. fixed wing has many inputs. I can’t say in this instance what the decision process was. Generally, fixed wing air ambulance is a safer way to go according to historical accident rates. Helicopters have some advantages where hospitals have helipads (our local hospitals do not have helipads). Helicopters can’t handle weather and ice like fixed wing can. And sometimes one or the other asset is already committed.
I understand your perception on bridges and roads, but as a driver of 49,000 lb fire trucks, I can’t stress enough how important replacing defective, aging bridges is. There would have come a point where we would not have gone across the old Deer Harbor bridge. All this infrastructure is important to the functioning of our society and leads to another discussion about Emergency Preparedness. If/When the Cascadia Earthquake even happens and our ferry terminals (not seismically rated) are likely destroyed and power is out for probably weeks, our only lifeline to food, energy and emergency healthcare will probably be through our airport.
We don’t have precise numbers for total takeoffs and landings. I have attempted to track them with game cameras, but the fidelity is suspect. I do have commercial numbers, but not at my fingertips right now. The commercial numbers have increased steadily and significantly over the last 5 years. — Yesterday I was flagged down by a private pilot who was having difficulty finding a parking spot…we are pretty heavily subscribed in the summer…and not so much in the winter, although the shoulder seasons continue to increase in use as well.
Yes, I did say that a truck was hit by a plane on orcas island on Mt Baker Rd. That’s according to a first hand report from a fellow firefighter and occurred years ago. The wheel hit the roof of the cab. You can imagine the result of being one foot lower or the truck being one foot higher. As it was, there’s no real record of it.
Are Sadie and I the only ones talking about the noise?! Wake up, folks! It’s the elephant in the room! Planes are only supposed to take off over Eastsound if the south wind is over 5 knots. Maybe I and others would be a little more receptive if that were enforced.
Noise is an interesting issue: These are averages in decibels:
Car-60-70
Garbage disposal 80
Diesel truck 84
Prop plane at 1000 feet 88
Food blender 88
Outboard motor, lawn mower, farm tractor, motor cycle 100
Jet Helicopter 100
Turbofan aircraft at full take off power-119
Rock music-110-120
Thunder or chainsaw 120
So it would seem if people want it quieter there are many places to make changes. Planes are louder than some things, but not substantially so, despite people’s perceptions. And there are far fewer of them than motorcycles and diesel trucks.
Let’s keep this scientific!
Good information, Tony.
I’d also add that perspective is critically important.
Let’s not forget that we’re living on a small island and “safety” needs to be viewed through that lens.
Many of us moved here to escape the conditions on the mainland, many of which are “less” safe. But one important sacrifice we make when moving to an island is we know we’re giving up some important infrastructure like state-of-the-art trauma centers, fully functioning hospitals with world renowned experts, and a plethora of choices for 911 emergencies.
We’re attempting to address the acess or the lack
thereof of basic medical care access via the HPD; we have a fire department attemeded to by best of the best and a very responsive sheriff who makes rounds regularly. We have a volunteer attitude on Orcas unmatched anywhere else.
As I see it, the crux of the complaint with the airport expansion proposals on the table is that they violate “the bargain and reasons” we had form coming here; these proposals view upgrading safety to that more fitting on the mainland where land is plentiful and resources fairly unlimited compared to our small island.
It’s the scale! The proposed modified airport is not fitting for a small island; it would intrude much the way intrusion is taken for granted on the mainland. We came here to escape that “type” of growth.
“If you don’t build it, they will not come”
—to reverse the meaning of a Hollywood inspired expression—
Again, “safety” is relative and while we can and should maintain the safest airport “within reason” given all of the above, we don’t want to go over board and ruin the very magic of Orcas island by overbuilding, using a sledge hammer when a small hammer does the trick, and by losing sight of the very reasons that make Orcas Island the gem that it is.
(If development has its way there will be large scale increases in vacation rentals, an updating of Eastsound to be much “cuter” from the point of view of those with LandRovers, BMWs and Mercedes (I’ve been that); a much larger airport that fits conveniently with these larger scale dreams that developers right at this very minute are working on to execute. As a property owner with incomparable views I stand to make much money by turning Orcas Island into Martha’s Vineyard or Nantucket. Some of you reading this might be thinking “well, none of that sounds so awful.” But really spend some time on it and understand how short your life really is and how experiences you now have on Orcas are beyond a price tag and practically non-existent anywhere else; ask yourself if $$$ can really take the place of our Orcas’ experience and lifestyle. There is no monetary substitute for this. So, who drives the conversion? Often it’s people who do not live here and never will; they will make their money by ruining our island and move to the next victim. None of this is inevitable folks. Orcas Island is uniquely gifted with remarkable human talent, thoughtful owners and renters who are amazingly resourceful and competent. We really can protect what we have even without a more formal central local government that can be held much more accountable on a day to day basis. We can do this but we have to begin recognizing “encroachment” in all manner, shape, and form and ask ourselves: does this fit? Is this development, city plan, or proposed airport expansion consistent with or contrary to the rural, less complicated, more peaceful, less noisy and “MORE SAFE” home that brought us here and will hopefully be here for those we leave behind. This island is a rare jewel. Let’s keep it that way.)
Dan, just yesterday I reached out to our noisiest and most frequent user and asked them to reinforce our noise abatement procedures. There is virtually zero authority to “enforce” noise abatement procedures. And I share your desire that there were. – In the longer term, encouraging the operator to switch engines to the IO-550 from the IO-520 would reduce noise significantly. In the interim, he is seeking approval to conduct reduced power takeoffs (at a lower RPM)
The reference to “LandRovers, BMWs and Mercedes” was an attempt at symbolism to represent some of the telltale signs of distasteful gentrification and over-development with “too much greed” as their diving purpose. No doubt plenty of fine people with impeccable intentions and characters drive these cars as well.
When the number of enplanements reaches 10,000, the game changes. (The numbers are on track for 2018). Money begins to flow from the Feds. $1m to the power elites. Will the powers that be be easily influenced by those seeking longer runways for larger aircraft, Lear jets? Is there any reason to assume they wouldn’t be? I cite the Aspen, Telluride airports as examples. Working people and the middle class derive scant benefit from airport expansions. Let’s emphasize the common good rather than the interests of a small segment of gilded age consorts.
A simple airport passenger “user fee” of 100/person/flight will assure that the enplanements stays below the dreaded 10,000 and solve your problem. I know of other islands that do this. I presume Orcas has the ability to enact whatever user fees they desire. Problem solved? While you’re at it, assessing any vehicle with a dB over 70 a 50/visit charge as it exits the ferry would also be a great revenue generator and could be a good job as well for a few Orcas residents. Time to get creative people.
Orcas is about living not squeezing out profits. Many on orcas use the airport often for work. Keeping it simple is keeping it cost friendly-as it is now. The thing is, it all works just fine as is. More people won’t come by way of air if service and the airport are not expanded. Squeezing money from every possible source is a mainland blight not to be encouraged here. Keeping it simple means not growing for the sake of growing. It’s just a small island, after all. Let other places put profit before people. Orcas’ formula works; it’s better balanced towards people and quality living; there’s plenty of proof all around the island and on its farms.
Also, I think Thom hit the nail on the head in terms of the larger picture and expanding the airport’s capacity.
As someone who lives directly in the flightpath of the airport as it approaches Eastsound I believe the noise level is greater than the 88 decibels cited by Neil Kaye, as it drowns out most conversations with an intensity similar to a rock concert. I oppose the airport expansion absent a comprehensive noise abatement plan.
I don’t think people are reading what I’m saying . In all of the alternatives overall pavement length gets shorter, not longer. Removing Mount Baker Road is to get it out of the current runway protection zone . The FAA would never ever allow us to extend the runway and by that action bring the road back into the RPZ.
Chris, I’m not trying to squeeze out profits. Airports are rarely profitable and most would go under were it not for public subsidy (tax dollars.) I’m simply pointing out that this plan falls apart as long as you never get to 10,000 enplanements. The easiest way to do that is to limit flights/passengers. This can be accomplished by financial incentives or disincentives, the easiest way for a government to try to affect behavior. And if people feel badly about collecting a user fee, they could always stipulate that all the money must be used to help pay for housing for existing homeless children.
Paula, the 88dB is measured at 1000 feet, not at short final landing. I don’t have a figure for that but it’s likely out there somewhere. Did you buy near the airport or was it there before you bought, and if so, did your Realtor warn you of the airport noise possibility?
Curiosity-as we are just starting to see the first electric planes, since they are “silent,” would this help the noise concerns? Any plan should include the possibility of technology advancing.
Neil- it’s more about “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” Cliché, yes, but it actually applies in this instance. It works now.
Surely, if we try to turn Orcas into a destination theme park we’ll invite much larger numbers of people and our infrastructure will be stressed and eventually buckle while, ironically, all the island’s qualities that first attracted the attention are diluted, dissolved and erased.
This proposal is in line with increasing capacity in one of the many infrastructural components of any small town or village; this is certainly a pre-requisite and precursor of bigger things to come-see the dots.
It’s about making profit the first priority (expanding the airport is consistent with this agenda); and, yes, it’s about profit over people, profit over “a way of living;” essentially, it’s “a profit over everything” blueprint. Of course it’s about money. When isn’t it? That’s the motivation behind the vast majority of all human action if we want to be sincere. Much of that human action is habitual and somewhat unconscious. Orcas’ residents are awake and more aware than many others.
Therefore, none of this is inevitable. Designs and plans can be halted or revised so that they’re consistent with the place that is Orcas, it’s most basic definition: a rural, bucolic, small island in an archipelago a fair distance off the North American continent in the Salish Sea between Canada and the United States, with a history that is intimately tied to the region’s first nations. Today it’s mindful of this history and it’s people on average live life on purpose, not accidentally stumbling through it unconscious and half-asleep. Coming to a small island with less mainland comfort means making a deliberate choice to live a different sort of life, one that certainly places experience above profit. Profit is not bad; it simply has it’s more well-balanced place so that experience and life take center stage. It’s a rather simple life recipe though tough to successfully bake in American society. Though, we’ve done it here on Orcas.
Now that this natural charm (which is Orcas today) has attracted attention for “profit making,” it’s up for sale. If the island’s residents so decide, they can prevent and/or steer “change” so that Orcas Island does not become a commodity rather than the living, mindful and peaceful place that it remains today.
This is living with intention, living on purpose and being in place and aware of what you now have and how precious it is. Don’t let it go.
(As for you last reference to “electric” planes; this is consistent with the idea that “bigger is not better.” Smarter is better! Let that be the motto of Orcas Island. All the more reason why we don’t need an intrusive/invasive expansion of the Airport. More is less and technology will make this principle practical and applicable on the ground, including in airplane technology, the requisite amount of operational space and a decrease in the emission of noise- all the more reason to live within our means, make do for now with what works and not physically expand for wrong and misguided reasons.)
Chris, I agree with ain’t broke don’t fix it. But isn’t it broken already, since the current system allows enplanements to increase and when they hit 10,000 that triggers the next FAA levels? Growth has been happening already and the airport hasn’t yet been expanded. So you have to keep current use from growing, not just fight airport expansion. Since Orcas is a combo of paradise, utopia, and the Garden of Eden already, how can residents make it less enticing to the rest of the world so that they won’t want to come, and not just by planes?
I just looked at the port website again and the images for each master plan alternative have been removed. That says it all! Reminder for public comments meeting July 26 at 3:30 at Orcas Fire and Rescue.
Public comments also emailed to orcasmasterplan@dowl.com thru August 3.
At the last EPRC meeting port manager Tony said the public meeting could not be made later so more people could attend because he “had a meeting at 6:00”.
Neil- It’s a delicate dance no doubt but the airport works fine as is if we want to maintain current capacity.
Also, Orcas as a destination for most non-residents is limited mostly to a few months a year. That’s hardly a reason to get worked up over. We’ll welcome tourists; the limits are hard and fixed and presently marry with the island’s capacity just fine—if not already a bit too much.
Only so many can come by air and ferry at any given time and that’s a good thing. The island’s formula between tourists and its capacity are about right during the heavy summer months. We certainly don’t have a need for larger infrastructure during the remaining 9 months of the year.
I’m saying we can keep it where it’s at by NOT increasing the flow capacity as in more ferries and more and larger B2 class aviation flights.
Let’s leave the incoming flow where it’s at so that an excess of visitors and tourists do not deteriorate the island’s core attributes (which is the honey that attracts the bees in the first place, ironically enough).
Dan,
Our calm wind runway, contained in our noise abatement procedures, has been 16 for as long as we have had noise abatement procedures. That is partly because the runway is uphill in that direction.
If you think we should look at designating 34 as our calm wind runway, I’m willing to consider it, but I’m not sure it would result in a significant change and with 34 being downhill, it comes at some additional risk.
Based on concerns about noise, I’m considering the cost and feasibility of conducting an informal noise study with rented or purchased equipment.
The airport master plan alternative are still on the port website –
just the titles are modified.
http://www.portoforcas.com/master-plan/
The Orcas Island Library now has some 11×17″ color copies of the alternative airport plans; also, a paper copy of a recent PowerPoint presentation about the master plan. These are available for use in the Library. Just ask at the front desk.