Airport Master Plan – Key points

Madrona Voices summary of the key points of the Port of Orcas Master Plan process and ideas, based on conversations with the Port Manager, Tony Simpson, and Commissioner Greg Sawyer.

The Port of Orcas manages the Orcas Airport and is updating their Master Plan. This identifies needs and the preferred ways of addressing those needs over the next 20 years. The website for the Port is www.PortOfOrcas.com. This survey is being sent to you by Madrona Voices. It is not commissioned by the Port. We have talked with the Port manager, Tony Simpson, as well as Commissioner Greg Sawyer, in order to verify that the information we provide and the questions we ask here accurately present the information. This summary is based on those conversations. The results of this survey will be shared with the public on our website: MadronaVoices.com and with the Port of Orcas, who may consider your responses as they make their plans.

Timeline

The process for making any changes to the airport are as follows:

  1. Identify the needs and identify the preferred way of addressing the needs. This is the stage at which the Port is now.
  2. The next step is to identify a project, if any, to pursue.
  3. Conduct an Environmental Impact Study – This might happen within 3 to 5 years.
  4. Conduct engineering studies and plans – This might happen after the Environmental Impact Study.
  5. Actually make the planned modifications. This might happen after all of the above steps

All of these things can be affected by a variety of things, including a change in needs and plans and who the decision-makers are.

Why Changes are Considered

There are a number of areas where the airport does not meet current FAA design standards. This does not mean the airport has to change things. But, they do need to address those shortcomings, if they plan to do any significant repair, modifications or improvements. At minimum, they need a plan that addresses the safety issues, even if they never implement any part of that plan. The Airport Master Plan was initiated by the FAA, because they knew that the Airport was incorrectly identified as a B1 small airport and needed to be identified as a B2 small airport.

It is our opinion, based on conversations with the manager and some of the commissioners, that they do not intend to expand the airport to accommodate larger aircraft than what are already using the airport now. Obviously, this could change, if there are new commissioners someday or the current commissioners change their minds.

The airport is currently designated as a B1 small airport. The airplanes currently operated by Kenmore Airways, Empire Air (FedEx), and Island Air exceed the B1 small airport safety recommendations. To safely accommodate many of the planes currently using the airport, the Port of Orcas is considering ways to match the B2 small FAA recommendations.

There are several factors on why the airport is not considered safe under B1 small FAA recommendations:

  1. The RPZ (Runway Protection Zone) currently extends into the traffic of Mt Baker Road and is an existing non compatible land use at the B1 small airport standards. Aircraft are most likely to have issues at takeoff or landing, which is why the FAA’s standards keep this area clear of people. If a plane comes in too low or if it has problems with a take-off, then it could potentially collide with a vehicle on Mt Baker Road.
  2. The taxiway and the runway at the airport are closer together than the FAA recommends for airplanes such as what Kenmore Airways, Empire Air (FedEx), and Island Air use.
  3. The terminal building, the hangar used by the biplane, and the building used by Aeronautical Services are too close to the taxiway, according to the FAA.

There are other concerns, but these are the primary safety issues.

Options Being Considered

The Port is considering how to address these factors. It considers many options of varying degrees of probability of being adopted.

One option is to do nothing. Tony Simpson, airport manager, says that if the commissioners adopt this option, the FAA could stop providing funding to the airport and might also request past grant money to be returned. This option is unlikely to be adopted by the commissioners, regardless of public sentiment. The Port signs grant assurances (a link to the FAA grant assurance is at http://www.portoforcas.com) each time they accept a FAA grant. As stated above, because of these assurances the Port could have to repay some or all past grant money.

There are multiple other ways the commissioners might address the various safety concerns and the long-term needs of the airport.  The Port website details some of the options they have considered. http://www.portoforcas.com/

Comments are accepted anytime throughout the Master Plan process. The commissioners are accepting comments regarding the development of the preferred alternative through August 3, 2018. You can make comment via their website, emailing orcasmasterplan@dowl.com, calling Project Manager Leah Henderson at 425-869-2670 or by visiting with the commissioners or airport manager. Your comments might influence their choices, but the decision is up to the commissioners. The commissioners will hold the next Airport Master Plan public open house on  September 19th. This meeting will present the preferred alternative to the public for comment. Meeting materials will be made available two weeks prior to the meeting and comments will be accepted through October 5 regarding the preferred alternative. The manager is recommending that the commissioners adopt the following ideas:

  1. Shorten the asphalt of the runway by 200 feet. This would not shorten the landing area which is between the landing stripes.
  2. Move the taxiway six feet to the east. This would cause there to be 156 feet separation between the taxiway and the runway. This is less than the FAA recommendation and would necessitate renewed FAA permissions every five years.
  3. Move the terminal, the biplane hangar, and the aeronautical buildings, as well as tie downs and other things that will conflict with the taxiway object free area.
  4. Adopt SE Development Alternative 1 – Figure 5  (The FAA would pay for the move of three buildings and parking.  Any additional hangers or buildings would be privately financed and would only happen if a private developer saw a need.)

All of the above ideas would be covered by the FAA grants and would require a match from the Port..

The commissioners might adopt something different than the manager’s recommendations.

Considerations

The FAA strongly encourages plans that address the safety concerns. However, the FAA does not require those plans to be implemented. The FAA will pay for 90% of approved projects. The State will sometimes pay for half of the 10% the local airport is to cover. The Port has over $700,000 in reserves. Within five years, this amount will be larger, giving the Port the ability to fund an $8 million dollar project, if it was liable for all of the 10% local share, or a $16 million dollar project, if the state picked up half of the local share.

It was mentioned that it is unlikely that the commissioners will make any plans that will extend the runway or make changes that will accommodate larger aircraft than are currently utilizing the airport. Additionally, the FAA does not support development that is not included in the forecasted activity. The FAA is still reviewing the Master Plan forecast, but growth is expected to be slow and the forecast did not foresee demand of larger aircraft using the Airport.

The FAA and the manager would like to see Mt Baker Road moved. Please look at Figure 9. It includes a couple of ideas, but others would be possible. This would significantly reduce the risk of any aircraft/vehicle incidents. This would not cause an extension of the runway nor the ability to accommodate larger aircraft. It would be done to remove the road from the RPZ (Runway Protection Zone). It would not cause any change in the noise patterns. However, for this to happen, the County would have to agree to move the road, and a couple of landowners would have to agree to sell their property. The manager sees those as unlikely events. So, even if the Master Plan includes that as a preferred option, there may be a low probability of it happening. But, it could happen if the County and the landowners agreed. The Port would like to emphasize that they have no intention of using eminent domain to force the change.  The FAA would pay for 90% of the cost of implementing this option. See Figure 9 to see what this might look like.

Who Makes the Decisions

The Port Commissioners are:

  • Shawn Simpson
  • Dwight Guss
  • Greg Sawyer
  • William Hopkins
  • Brian Ehrmantraut

The airport manager is:

  • Tony Simpson

Survey

Please return to the survey. You can access that either via the email invitation you received or on the window that may still be open on your computer.

Thank you for reading this summary and moving on to make your voice be heard.