Reader shares response from DOT Aviation Director
— from Tracey Levine —
WSDOT Aviation Division does play a role in providing technical assistance to airports as they go through the process of updating their airport master plans. I have tried to answer some of your questions below.
Our office also contacted Tony Simpson from the airport. Hence, I believe you will receive or already have received a call from him to address your concerns.
I recommend you speak to Mr. Simpson for a more complete picture of where the airport currently stands in the airport master plan process and the opportunity for the public to provide additional input.
Please don’t hesitate to contact our office for additional information.
Sincerely,
David
- The Port of Orcas is the sponsor (owner) of the airport. San Juan County Councilman, Mr. Rick Hughes, represents the county council on the master plan’s advisory committee; in that role Mr. Hughes:
a. Provides the Port and their consultant with input into the airport master plan regarding the current and future use of the Orcas Island Airport.
b. Represents the constituents of San Juan County with interest in the use and development of the airport.
c. Communicates with constituents regarding the development of the master plan and shares feedback with the advisory committee, airport, and consultant throughout the process.
d. Reviews elements of the plan while they are in draft form and comments on the accuracy of the assumptions and relevance of the information used to develop the report.
Comments from advisory committee members are considered by the consultant in developing the draft and final version of the report. Advisory committee members do not vote to approve or disapprove elements of the study, however a general consensus and understanding of the plan is optimal.
- Constituents of the Port of Orcas have numerous opportunities to participate throughout the master plan process by attending public open houses held both in the afternoon and evenings, reviewing and commenting on draft materials made available on the master plan’s website, and can sign up to receive emails regarding project information and meetings. Additionally, constituents have the power of electing Port Commissioners who ultimately make decisions regarding the airport.
- The following are the roles of WSDOT Aviation, FAA, Port of Orcas, and DOWL LLC in regards the airport master plan:
a. WSDOT Aviation – provided grant funding to the Port of Orcas to assist the Port in their required matching funds to an FAA grant, serves on the master plan advisory committee to provide technical assistance throughout the process, communicates how the airport fits into the Washington Aviation System Plan and the performance metrics established based on the airport’s state classification, provides technical assistance on land use compatibility, and reviews/comments on draft products developed by the consultant throughout the development of the plan.
b. FAA – provided 90% grant funding for the airport master plan, also serves on the master plan advisory committee to provide technical assistance throughout the process, is responsible for the national system of airports (National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS)) and the role that the Orcas Island Airport has in the NPIAS, establishes airport safety and design standards, reviews and has ultimate approval of the aviation forecasts and the airport layout plan developed during the planning process, and has the ability to consider modifications to certain design standards when an airport is unable to fully comply with a design standard.
c. Port commission – is responsible for allocating matching funds to the FAA grant, oversees the planning process, contracts with and manages the consultant preparing the master plan, is ultimately responsible for adopting the plan, and facilitates implementation of the projects that are an outcome of the plan to move the airport towards meeting FAA safety and design standards.
d. DOWL – is the consultant selected by the Port of Orcas to conduct the planning process and prepare the airport master plan and the airport layout plan drawings.
An airport master plan is a study used to determine the long-term development plans for an airport. Because air transportation is a vital community industry, it is important that the requirements for airport improvements be anticipated. It is also essential to reserve adequate resources to meet identified needs. Airport master planning is a critical tool in determining needs and programming development at individual airports.
The airport master plan process provides opportunities for political entities and the public to participate in the development of aviation plans. It provides a framework for individual airport development programs consistent with short, intermediate, and long-range airport system requirements and determines future financial requirements.
An airport master plan addresses the development needs for a 20-year time period. Updates are often necessary as the dynamic conditions of the industry are reflected in activity and future needs. The plan is a community’s concept of the long-term development of its airport. It graphically displays the concept and reports the data and logic upon which the plan is based. The plans are prepared to support the modernization of existing airports and to meet current FAA design standards.
The master planning process considers the needs and demands of airport tenants, users, and the general public. The guiding principle of the airport master planning process is the development of a safe and efficient airport. It must also be responsive to area-wide comprehensive transportation planning.
I would also point out that an Airport’s Master Plan is subject to change and most projects will undergo environmental assessments as part of the process before grant funding for individual projects is approved.
David Fleckenstein
Director, Aviation Division
Washington State Department of Transportation
Thank you Mr Fleckenstein for a comprehensive review of the governing bodies which influence the planning and implementation of future development of the Port of Orcas.
Now, could someone please tell me what this means as regards respecting the larger needs of this community and its right to determine the character and quality of life here on Orcas and the obligations of the Port of Orcas Commission to respect these needs?
Last I heard, the former chair of that commission essentially told us the community “thank you..” for all your articulate well researched and cooperative participation in ‘the process.’ ..
“BUT, forget it. We’re going to do what we want anyway, without any accountability and without justification or explanation, because we have the power to do it our way, regardless.” And just to show you how powerless you all are as a community of concerned citizens, we are now going to move the time line up a few years!
Now, I’m not clear just how large the pile of cash the consultants that cooked up this plan are receiving, or the mandate they were given by the Commission, but it would seem that at very least they have failed in their obligations to present the matter transparently and respectfully to the people that drive down that road and walk down the trails and live in the homes affected by the new “Plan.”
SO.. according the the schema presented above, WHO is responsible to tell us the non-Bureaucratically nor legal-minded, WHAT exactly is going on with closing that road? Because if it isn’t, we want that forest replanted. And if it is, we want to know who to go after next..
I am grateful that Mr. Fleckenstien had the decency to respond to a citizen inquiry; that is greatly appreciated.
As someone who has closely followed this issue since late June, and has asked a lot of questions, some which remain a mystery as to how they can be answered-yet-not-answered, and how public and environmental concerns can be completely disregarded, I interpret this letter from DOT in the following way:
“The consultant had the workshops. You people had your chance – if you didn’t come, that’s your bad.”(Never mind that people had no idea of their plans for maximum buildout AND that they’ve been been going for the funding to do it all along – it’s YOUR fault, public!)
“But the Port wouldn’t have listened to you anyway because the goal here is to push economic growth, represent commercial, tourism, and aviation interests – NOT local, environmental or social justice issues – and there’s nothing you can do about it.” –
all in very polite terms, of course.
Nothing in here, or anything by the port manager or commissioners addresses how the consultant presented a false alternative (Alt 1). – and that if we chose it – (which we did because we thought it was a viable choice, and some aviation-savvy people even suggested adjustments to it to make it work to not have to enlarge the footprint) – that meant we chose to leave or be kicked out from AIP (FAA/DOT/State) funding and expected to pay back millions of taxpayer dollars within 30 days! They used this rationale a lot as a scare tactic to get people to give up and comply. It worked. No one pursued questioning the FAA about the “false advertising” of Alternative 1.
We never were guided on HOW they wanted us to comment or on what – our petitions for Alternative 1 with 193 signatures were denied entry into the comment document. It’s clear if you read the comment responses on the document that this was never a two-way conversation. They had already picked the “preferred alternative” in June. The rest was just a stall game, a carrot dangled, while they did the timeline – which since Sept. has all been fast-tracked, as the unsuspecting public shall soon find out.
At least this DOT man explained that we never had a chance, up front.
This is more than just “sour grapes”… I sincerely ask for an answer to this question: Why even have the pretense of Port Commission elections if there will be no representation of the Public and RISK on the ground? Oh – and to one of Leif’s astute questions – over $600,000.
Hark!
It is the warbling technocrat whose song trills in our ears the discordant melody of, ‘preferred option (s)” To which I can only reply, “Preferred by whom?” Perhaps this song was learned from the warblers at NAS Whidbey.
Where there is no accountability there is no democracy. Full stop.
Had a binding plebiscite been put before the voters of Eastsound which ‘option’ would have prevailed? Of course that wouldn’t leave much room for the sleight of hand we are now enduring.
How exquisite this moment of spring before the hordes arrive. Nice little community you got here, too bad if something tragic should happen. (heh. heh)
Sister Sadie sniffed this one out last year, please thank her for her efforts in keeping this issue before the public.
An impressive display of bureacratic blatering. Yes, all that is true. What you ignore is the fact that the overwhelming opposition to drastic changes was utterly ignored. And asking anyone to speak to Mr. Simpson, one of the most unapologetically non-responsive government employees I’ve encountered in 50 years of working with government employees, is really missing the mark.
*blathering
The Commissioners are responsible for making the decision and it looks like they were happy with what was presented to them ? And then 3 Commissioners resigned and 3 new Commissioners got appointed !
No discussion from the 3 new members so far.
The community is being railroaded and the consequences of closing Mt Baker Road will have such a negative impact