Thursday, December 10 th, 4:00 6:10 PM PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE SPECIAL TOPICS MEETING

Transcription

1 PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE SPECIAL TOPICS MEETING Thursday, December 10 th, 4:00 6:10 PM Meeting Notes Port of Portland Headquarters Channel Rm., 8 th Floor 7200 NE Airport Way, Portland, OR NAME INTEREST REPRESENTED ATTENDANCE VOTING MEMBERS Bob Fowler Adjacent Industrial Business Toyo Tanso Present Joe Smith Oregon Pilots Association Present Marvin Woidyla TTD Tenant Fixed Base Operator Present Travis Stovall Chair Present NON-VOTING MEMBERS Steve Nagy Port of Portland Present Port Staff and Consultants Present: Institute for Conflict Management: Sam Imperati and Nellie Papsdorf; Mead & Hunt: Mitchell Hooper; Port of Portland: Daren Griffin, Jason Gately, Sean Loughran, Chris White; Jviation: Steve Schreiber. Others Present: City of Troutdale: Chris Damgen; Premier Aircraft Engines: Jim DesJardins; Advanced Aircraft Services LLC: Greg Lehman; Troutdale Aircraft Services: Scott Kenny; Thomas and Gloria Highland. Welcome and Announcements Mr. Sam Imperati called the Troutdale Airport Planning Advisory Committee Special Topics meeting to order at 4:13pm. Agenda Review Mr. Imperati reviewed the meeting agenda and explained that the meeting was an opportunity for Port of Portland staff, project consultants, and members of the Troutdale Airport Planning Advisory Committee to explore issues that had arisen over the past two meetings. Some members of the public were present, who had been invited by PAC members. He noted that he had worked with staff to review meeting notes and compile questions to address. He explained that the purpose of the meeting was to review this information and determine if there was any other information needed before the Troutdale Airport Planning Advisory Committee meeting on January 28. Mr. Imperati noted that the discussion was intended as an informal overview of what the committee had discussed and reminded the group that the final vote on the alternatives may take place at the January meeting. 1

2 Mr. Imperati then set up ground rules for the meeting. He explained that Mr. Mitch Hooper, of the consulting firm Mead & Hunt, would provide an overview of each of the main questions raised, as well as the highlights of alternatives B and C. He requested that members hold their questions until the end of each subject review in order to respond to the topics effectively. Application of Design Standards Mr. Mitch Hooper began his report with a brief overview of the Troutdale Airport Master Plan project. He explained that the presentation would focus on the application of design standards, such as runways, taxiways, and safety setbacks. He informed the committee that 90% of users at Troutdale Airport (TTD) operate single user piston engine aircrafts and explained that this trend would help determine what standards were needed at TTD. He pointed out that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) also requires airports to meet certain standards and noted that these requirements would also influence the TTD s final design. Mr. Hooper explained that FAA standards underwent a significant rewrite in 2012 and many projects formerly eligible for FAA dollars were no longer acceptable (such as widths, setbacks, and safety areas). Mr. Hooper then provided background on the TTD update. He explained that one of the core questions he had received during his time on the project focused on why reconstruction was necessary. Mr. Hooper informed the committee that in order to receive FAA funding, Troutdale Airport would need to meet FAA-dictated runway dimensions, as FAA funding is based on the proposed design meeting FAA criteria. He stated that as policy, the FAA will not build beyond what is reasonable and justified for any given airport. Mr. Hooper explained that as runway and taxiway facilities at TTD are larger than what the FAA deems necessary to serve its users, the runway must be reduced. Mr. Hooper added that FAA standards also require airports to meet runway protection zone design standards and that any deviation from those standards requires demonstration that there is no feasible way to meet them. Mr. Hooper noted that the FAA had also become more concerned with runway protection zones (protective areas that separate the runway from public areas) in recent years. He stated that because of the level of investment involved, the planning process focused on bringing the airport s design standards into compliance. He explained that one option considered evaluated the potential of relocating roads around the runway. He noted that because of the levy on the east side of the runway, moving the runway was the only option moving forward. Mr. Hooper explained that the runway and taxiways at Troutdale Airport both exceeded FAA standards and illustrated where they could be reduced. 2

3 Mr. Hooper gave an overview of alternative B. He informed the committee that alternative B reduced the runway to 3,600 by 75 and shifted it as far east as possible. He added that it would also include 90 acres of industrial land and 152 acres of aviation land (including the airfield and related buildings). He reminded the committee that the final version of the alternative represented a 20-year project that would be phased in over time and explained that alternative B focused on appealing to the current core uses of Troutdale Airport such as flight training, piston and turbo prop recreational pilots, and business aviation. Mr. Hooper then provided an overview of alternative C. He explained that Alternative C reduced the runway to 4,500 by 75 and also shifted the runway as far east as possible. He noted that alternative C included 73 acres of industrial land and 168 acres of aviation land. He pointed out that while alternative C included slightly fewer acres of industrial land, it remained similar to alternative B in terms of layout. Mr. Hooper commented that alternative C focused on appealing to light and medium uses of the airport including flight training, piston and turbo prop recreational pilots, business aviation, and light to medium jets. Mr. Hooper explained that in both alternatives, airfield access remains a possibility. He noted that the option provides the Port of Portland with flexibility based on the market, in terms of whether or not businesses are interested in having access to the airfield. Mr. Imperati then asked if there were any questions about the two proposals. Mr. Joe Smith asked how all of the businesses currently located on the north side of the airport would be relocated to the southeast corner where there are wetlands. Mr. Hooper responded that the acreage available in the southeast corner of the airport was sufficient for all of the businesses currently located on the north side; the businesses would just have to be built closer together. The wetlands in the southeast corner are low quality in terms of ecological value and can be mitigated. Mr. Steve Nagy gave an overview of how relocation would work. He explained that every building has a lease agreement and that the phasing plan to be considered at the January 28 meeting takes into account the lease termination of each tenant s lease. He informed the committee that redevelopment of the sites would not occur until their leases expire and told the committee that the long term phasing plan would be further explored at future meetings. The goal of the long term phasing plan is to avoid early termination of leases. In the possibility that a lease must be terminated early to implement the long term plan, the Port would work with the lessee individually to find suitable terms for early termination of the lease. Mr. Travis Stovall commented that in terms of phasing, airfield reconstruction would occur relatively soon, but would still need to accommodate neighboring businesses with leases. 3

4 Mr. Marvin Woidyla asked how many open leases the Port currently maintains. Mr. Nagy responded that there were about three major facilities with open leases. Market Potential Mr. Hooper provided an overview of market potential at Troutdale Airport (TTD). He explained that staff used national market rates to determine the market potential of TTD. He noted that TTD deviated from national averages slightly. While recreational aviation makes up 40% of airport activity in the United States, it makes up 32% of airport activity at TTD. Business aviation makes up 45% of activity across the country and 20% of activity at TTD. Most noteworthy, only 15% of airport activity in the United States is made up of flight training, while it makes up 48% of activity at TTD. Mr. Hooper then evaluated emerging and growing markets in aviation. He noted that the FAA expected light sport aircraft aviation to grow, as it represents a relatively lower cost in terms of training and aircraft investment. Mr. Hooper explained that the unmanned aircraft systems market was also expected to grow, as unmanned aircrafts do not necessarily need an airport to operate and pending regulation is expected to make the aircrafts more accessible to interested users. Mr. Hooper added that traditional operators such as turboprops and helicopters also represented a growing market. Mr. Hooper explained that the consultants used the national market rates to prepare a market assessment and evaluate how the airport currently operates and what it may look like in the future. He noted that in alternative B, the airport would not see a substantial amount of jet traffic, except for users in smaller aircrafts. Alternative C, because of its longer runway, would have more potential to attract jet traffic users. Mr. Hooper pointed out that this was the only significant difference between the two alternatives. Mr. Joe Smith asked if the potential for business according to each alternative was based on manufacturer guidelines. Mr. Hooper responded that it was federally mandated by the FAA to use specific aircraft requirements. Mr. Smith replied that many Beechcraft King Air operators would disagree with the runway needs expressed in the presentation. Mr. Imperati notified the committee that if members had any information to contribute that would better inform the January 28 decision, it would be welcomed. Mr. Hooper responded to a question brought up at the seventh Planning Advisory Committee meeting that asked if a fixed-based operator (FBO) would be feasible. He explained that many airports with runways less than 5,000 support FBOs such as Vancouver Pearson, Mulino, Kelso, and Newberg. He noted that though the services offered may be different, an FBO at TTD would be feasible given the level of traffic. 4

5 As an example, he explained that a future FBO may no longer sell Jet A fuel depending on the amount of turbo props and turbine helicopters. Mr. Smith stated that because Twin Oaks and Newberg are both owned by FBOs, the comparison with TTD was not very apt. NextGen Impact Mr. Hooper then gave an overview of the impact of NextGen. He explained that NextGen was a satellite-based navigational system, as compared to a more traditional ground-based navigational system. He noted that the system included a number of significant advantages including: traffic separation, better situational awareness, lower minimums, and more efficient time and fuel operations. Mr. Hooper informed the committee that for certain airports, NextGen makes use of already existing satellites and avoids the costs of ground-based equipment. He explained that Troutdale Airport is located in an area that is somewhat geographically challenging, particularly coming from the east side, which could make navigation difficult. Mr. Hooper also pointed out that while the required navigation performance (RNP) system has high levels of precision, it can require special authorization and additional crew training. Mr. Hooper noted that one question the committee had raised concerned TTD and PDX, as compared to LAX and HHR (Hawthorne, CA.) Mr. Hooper explained that southern California was part of the FAA NextGen Metroplex, and as such, had undergone an FAA redesign that included NextGen procedures. He stated that the redesign also modified the airspace procedures to improve efficiency of access to the airports and demonstrated how the traffic flows operated to improve access and mitigate noise. Mr. Hooper explained that in contrast, the runway orientations at PDX and TTD are not parallel. He noted that the mountains to the east of the airports limit approach corridors for aircrafts, making it difficult to develop new pathways. Industrial Development Mr. Hooper explained that the conceptual phasing plan for industrial development of the airport began at the west end and moved east. He noted that the rate of development would depend on the leases of the existing users and the market for industrial land. Mr. Hooper emphasized that industrial development would be vital to generating the revenue that would support ongoing aviation activity at the airport and explained that development could occur over the next ten years without displacing the eastern end. He noted that the plan would not interfere with the Air Traffic Control Tower north pattern line of site and would focus on developing the north side of the airport first while reserving other areas for future consideration. 5

6 Mr. Woidyla asked about the placement of natural gas lines in the proposed scenario and they were noted on the map as north of the planned development. Mr. Hooper responded to a question brought up at the seventh Planning Advisory Committee meeting that asked if Aurora Airport (UAO) could be used as a model for TTD. He informed the committee that industrial development does not preclude an aviation-related manufacturer from leasing a site. He noted that the Port of Portland was interested in producing revenue from land that is vacant or in excess of demand. For example, an aviation-related company could lease property for research and development (R&D) or manufacturing and airfield access could be maintained or added by a developer. Mr. Hooper added that aviation manufacturing and R&D signify industrial uses and shared the examples of Garmin at Salem Airport, and Columbia Helicopters and Vans Aircraft at Aurora. He noted that others may not require airfield access, but could be located on-site, such as Boeing. Mr. Hooper explained that such types of users had not expressed interest in TTD at its existing configuration, but that the pattern could change with industrial area openings. Mr. Smith asked if staff could determine whether the lack of expressed interest had to do more with the limited runway length or inadequacy of instrument approach. Airport Role in System Mr. Hooper reminded the committee that it was important to consider the role of Troutdale Airport as part of a larger aviation system. He gave an overview of airports currently operating in the Portland metropolitan area and illustrated the different services they provide. He noted that all of the airports included a fixedbase operator and on-site fuel. 63% have jet fuel: PDX, HIO, UAO, TTD, and SPB; 50% have a control tower: PDX, HIO, UAO, and TTD; and 50% have a vertically-guided approach: PDX, HIO, UAO, and SPB. He noted that it was important to consider that out of those airports that have a vertically-guided approach, two have a NextGen vertically-guided approach only. He explained that when the FAA evaluates airports eligible for reconstruction, they assess simulated instrument landing systems (ILS) and determine whether or not NextGen implementation is worth the investment needed. Mr. Smith asked if staff had access to data that describes how many days per year TTD is below 600, 800, and 1100 feet. Mr. Imperati responded that staff would bring that information to the January 28 meeting. Mr. Hooper then gave an overview of the Port of Portland s Airport System Approach that was a key part of the development of the PDX Master Plan in

7 He determined that the requirements for additional general aviation at PDX were driven by FAA policy, demand, and the Port s philosophy towards managing the system of airports in a way that best serves the needs of the growing metropolitan region. Mr. Hooper explained that the Port of Portland is committed to meeting local general aviation needs by providing facilities and services that are reasonable and appropriate to managing demand across the system of airports. Mr. Hooper stated that as part of this process, the Port had evaluated what was the most appropriate segment of the general aviation market for both PDX and TTD. He noted that PDX was most appropriate for high-end, cabin class business aviation aircrafts. He explained that the commercial aircraft environment made it difficult for smaller general aviation aircraft to navigate PDX. Mr. Hooper added that it would be important to preserve PDX s role as the region s primary commercial service airport and provide sufficient opportunity for general aviation facilities suitable for PDX in order to continue to satisfy FAA grant assurances. He noted that the Port aimed to continue to support strategic investments at more suitable reliever airports such as Troutdale and Hillsboro to provide attractive alternatives for smaller piston-engine aircraft, as well. Mr. Hooper then went over how Airport Futures and the PDX Master Plan helped formulate the Port s Airport System Approach. He explained that each airport serves a unique need in the larger system and it would be important to accurately assess those needs. He noted that it would be critical to preserve capacity for commercial service aircraft as well as larger business aviation. Mr. Hooper informed the committee that the PDX Master Plan was followed by the PDX Northside Redevelopment Strategy that evaluated how to meet commercial service requirements long-term. He explained that as PDX extends the E concourse to the east, it will need to relocate its current general aviation campus. He told members that Atlantic Aviation had agreed to spend $24 million to move the campus as part of a significant investment in PDX, and noted that the decision provided an opportunity to explore what makes an airport attractive for investment. Mr. Marvin Woidyla asked how Atlantic Aviation has fared over the past two years. Mr. Sean Loughran responded that Atlantic Aviation had experienced a significant increase in its amount of business as well as a significant change in its types of business. He noted that the last of the T hangars were now gone and the market had transitioned away from smaller operations with an increase in business at the larger corporate aircraft level. 7

8 Financial Review Mr. Steve Schreiber, Jviation, provided an overview of the planning process financial review, noting that it would be covered more in-depth at the January 28 meeting. He shared the life cycle costs for runway replacement for alternative B and C, as well as maintaining the status quo. He noted that the evaluation reviewed upfront costs of building the infrastructure as well as the costs of maintaining the runway over time to analyze the overall costs over a 40-year period and determine the life cycle costs of the runway. He explained that there was a significant monetary difference in life cycle costs between the three options. Mr. Schreiber demonstrated that the status quo was not only the most expensive to construct, but also incurred the highest maintenance costs. Alternative Runway Dimen. Total SqFt Total Initial + Maintenance Total Over 40 Yrs Cost NPV % Inc B 3600' x 75' 270,000 ($17.7) ($11.3) 0% C 4500' x 75' 337,500 ($22.2) ($14.2) 25% Status Quo 5400' x 150' 810,000 ($45.2) ($26.9) 137% Mr. Chris Damgen asked if the projected costs factored in the relocation of the taxiways. Mr. Schreiber responded that they did. Comments from PAC Chair Mr. Travis Stovall introduced himself as Chair of the Planning Advisory Committee, noting his extensive experience with economic and community development in the Portland metropolitan region and longtime passion for aviation. He explained that he was committed to maintaining an appreciable airport in East County that would continue to benefit the community that surrounds it. He reminded the committee that it would be important to ensure that any investments made in the area were thoughtful and responsive to local needs, while also thinking comprehensively about the Troutdale Airport s role in the larger system. He agreed that it was important to weigh each concern carefully and encouraged the committee to discuss the alternatives in a collaborative and constructive way in order to determine the best outcome. 8

9 PAC/Port Discussion of Alternatives B & C Mr. Marvin Woidyla pointed out that in both alternatives B and C, there was only one taxiway available for both incoming and outgoing aircrafts and helicopters and asked how this could affect operations at the airport. Mr. Joe Smith explained that he flew a Mooney aircraft out of the Troutdale Airport and that for his purposes, flying on 3600 of runway would be acceptable, but added that it would be important to plan for the next generation of flyers, as well. He informed the committee that he had attended a general aviation conference in October and learned that electric airplanes could soon make flying much more economically accessible. Mr. Smith stated that he could see Troutdale Airport being incredibly beneficial to Portland International Airport if its renovations were planned for effectively. He explained that because of this, it would be important to have a decent instrument approach in order to attract pilots. Mr. Chris Damgen related to the committee that commercial aviation at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport had skyrocketed. He noted that the two airports were very different, but the growth in commercial operations was an important consideration to keep in mind. He asked what would happen if Troutdale Airport needed a major expansion, or if an airline expressed interest in significant expansion. He inquired about how eliminating general aviation land at TTD might affect the airport long-term. Mr. Imperati responded that the flexibility of the plan would be discussed more in-depth at the January meeting and explained that the plan s ability to adapt would be critical to its overall viability. Mr. Damgen then asked how the land inventory surrounding the airport related to alternatives B and C. He also asked what the justification was for concentrating future aviation on the south side of the airport instead of recalibrating the north end. Mr. Hooper explained that the decision mainly had to do with the need for semi-truck access on the north side as the south side was not conducive to industrial traffic. He added that the higher amount of rectangular lots on the north side also made it the more favorable of the two for industry. Mr. Imperati informed Mr. Damgen that a past presentation had evaluated the merits of the north and south sides and offered to pass along the presentation materials. Mr. Smith asked what would happen if Graham Road was closed on the east side of the airport. Mr. Bob Fowler responded that closing the road would likely have significant negative consequences on traffic in the area. Mr. Loughran emphasized the importance of evaluating larger system impacts and added that a lot of work had been done with Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) funds to improve connectivity in the system as it had proved challenging in the past. 9

10 Mr. Travis Stovall asked Mr. Smith if he felt it was important to attract business jet traffic to TTD. Mr. Smith agreed and explained that business jet traffic was where the majority of aviation growth occurred. Mr. Woidyla mentioned that most of the information used in the presentation was from and expressed concerns about the lack of information on airport activity in He explained that with the shared alternatives, there would be no need for a fixed-base operator because the type of airplanes able to land at TTD would have a limited need for gas and maintenance. Mr. Steve Nagy reminded the group that in addition to its runway limitations, Troutdale Airport also has an aircraft weight limit in its functional ability. He noted that, in terms of the larger system, it would be important to avoid duplicating services. Mr. Woidyla responded that TTD could provide an alternative for certain users. Mr. Smith commented that he felt an efficient instrument approach was even more significant than the length of the runway in terms of attracting customers to the airport. Mr. Stovall asked what was the largest jet that could land on a 4500 runway. Mr. Woidyla responded an Embraer Phenom 100 was probably the maximum. Mr. Greg Lehman, Advanced Aircraft Services LLC, expressed concerns about the Troutdale Master Plan process. He explained that as the tenant of the western-most hangar on the north side, he was troubled by the idea of industrialization occurring as soon as He stated that he did not feel sufficiently included in the planning process and expressed concerns about deficiencies in the available information so close to the vote on alternatives B and C in January. Mr. Imperati explained that Mr. Hooper s presentation had only addressed questions raised at the last two Planning Advisory Committee meetings and did not include all of the concepts that would be considered at the January 28 meeting. He also reminded Mr. Lehman that any vote on January 28 did not represent the end of the planning process, but instead simply moved the committee towards a preferred alternative. Mr. Scott Kenny, Troutdale Aircraft Services, commented that TTD s current runway length already limited the types of aircrafts that could operate at the airport, and expressed concerns about the consequences of shortening it further. He explained that smaller airports appealed to customers for a number of reasons including lower costs and encouraged the committee to consider TTD as a viable option for aircraft operators. He agreed with Mr. Woidyla that if the runway was reduced to 3600 a 10

11 fixed-base operator would be unnecessary as jets would be unable to land at the airport. Mr. Jim DesJardins, Premier Aircraft Engines, explained that he had operated out of Troutdale Airport since 1977 and shared concerns about the proposed length of the runway in both alternatives B and C. He expressed skepticism about the comparison to airports such as Mulino and Newberg, noting that none of the facilities listed share the same overhead, expenses, and insurance requirements as TTD. He reminded the committee that many people earn their livelihoods as tenants at TTD and encouraged them to consider their options carefully. Mr. Thomas Highland commented that he did not feel that TTD should be in competition with PDX for business aircraft services because TTD was mandated to draw general aviation aircrafts away from PDX. He expressed interest in developing a business plan that would better focus TTD on general aviation and asked how the Port planned to support Troutdale and Hillsboro Airports to attract more traffic. He encouraged the Port of Portland to engage in the general aviation business in a comprehensive way and focus less on PDX. He also asked about the Port s efforts to share the benefits of air travel with the business community. Mr. Highland shared written testimony on the Troutdale Airport Master Plan. His letter is included at the end of this document. Mr. Stovall agreed that the East Metro Economic Alliance could do a better job of advertising aircraft potential. Mr. Imperati asked if members had any remaining questions or concerns. Mr. Woidyla noted that it seemed as if alternatives B and C were the Port of Portland s preferences visualized. Mr. Imperati reminded the committee that the Planning Advisory Committee had voted to continue with alternatives B and C over the summer. Mr. Woidyla responded that the vote had occurred before the shortened runway had been proposed. The graphics show shorter runways. He explained that it was important to include the committee in serious decisions instead of asking them to review fully developed proposals. Mr. Loughran replied that the Port of Portland valued the contributions of its advisory committees and did not bring preconceived notions of its projects to vote. He gave an overview of the process and explained that like all Port projects, the planning process began with an inventory of current conditions, a forecast of future needs, and an evaluation of facility requirements that together contributed to the development of an eventual concept plan. 11

12 Mr. Smith stated that there was an opportunity with the Troutdale Airport Master Plan work to develop a vision for the airport in the future. He expressed interest in using TTD to mimic what Hillsboro Airport provides for the west side of the region. Adjourn Mr. Imperati concluded the meeting at 6:35pm and reminded members that the next Troutdale Airport Planning Advisory Committee meeting would be held on January 28 at 5:00pm. 10 December 2015 HIGHLAND LETTER To: Port of Portland Directors, Management Staff, Planning Staff and Members of the Troutdale Planning Advisory Committee and Consultant Staff. Subject: Thoughts and comments on the ongoing Troutdale Airport Master Planning project and Development of industrial properties northwest of the Troutdale Airport. My name is: Thomas E. Highland, current tenant in a T Hangar at the Troutdale Airport, where I hangar my Cessna 195. I was born and raised in Klamath Falls, Oregon where I began flying at the age of 17 and have been in aviation for 62 years. I retired, as a Pilot from the Air Force, Managed Pearson Airpark in the City of Vancouver for 7 years, and retired from Oregon State Aeronautics in While at Oregon State Aeronautics, I Managed the Oregon Aviation System Plan development, Managed the Air Search and Rescue Program, and Managed land-use and planning activities. While in Land use planning, I wrote the draft language for the Statewide Compatible Land Use Program in coordination with The State Land Use Coordination and Development Department and the State Attorney s Office. After adoption of Airport Compatible Land Use Zoning language by the State of Oregon, I assisted City and County jurisdictions, throughout the state, in implementing these zoning laws. I have included this background to lend credence to my comments and not to be viewed as just another ill-informed commenter on these issues. 1. Open Water Occurring North-west of the Troutdale Airport. a. While en-route to the airport recently, I noticed land grading and leveling, East of the Boat Ramp on the Columbia. Over time, I saw the accumulation of open water at the site and the apparent inclusion of some type of wild animal resting areas, constructed of logs tied together. I am concerned that development of open water areas in the vicinity of Troutdale and 12

13 Portland airspace will increase bird populations in the area and impact safety of flight for all aviation airspace users in the area. b. My contacts with entities familiar with controlling bird habitat indicated that US Fish and Wildlife Animal Damage Control personnel were not utilized to conduct a study of current wildlife use and patterns in the area nor what changes this development might have on wildlife populations and flight patterns in the future. c. Having only the US Fish and Wildlife Department involved in the study, without input from Animal Damage Control, does not seem to be totally appropriate, as the US Fish and Wildlife Service, in my past dealings, is more concerned with wildlife protection than predation and control of wildlife in the area. These comments are resulting from a flight I conducted for US Fish and Wildlife personnel, for the wildlife area to the East of Troutdale Airport. We passed about 200 feet above a flight of 15 to 20 geese in the traffic pattern and these personnel were only fascinated by the wonderful birds, without realizing they could be involved in a crash landing due to an in-flight bird-strike with these 10 to 15 pound birds. d. I am informed that the Audubon Society has a strong position on any development of control of and possible predation of birds in the area. Where safety of flight and reducing the possibility of aircraft and Bird strikes, similar to the Hudson River airline crash landing is concerned, I would recommend stronger competing voices be included in the Port of Portland Wildlife Committee. I used to sit on that committee and saw the strong political pressure brought by Society members. e. The open water impoundment compatible land use program was put in place years before the Hudson River Issue and was criticized as putting too much emphasis on the issue at the expense of wildlife. Many have failed to comprehend that many species of wildlife have been killed in bird-strikes that may have been prevented by habituating their activities elsewhere. f. The use of wetland mitigation banks, remote from airports, was always recommended and is not apparent in coordination I have had on this plan. The wildlife protection agencies should be in the business of developing these sites for the benefit of wildlife as well as the users of the airspace in the vicinity of airports. The airline passengers have not historically had a voice in these issues and the responsible people involved in developing the aviation airspace plan should have their safety uppermost in their 13

14 minds, as opposed to strictly the development of future industrial space and the potential for revenue enhancement. 2. Future Development of Troutdale Airport. a. Troutdale and Hillsboro Airports were identified, years ago, as reliever airports for Portland International Airport to attract general aviation aircraft away from the Air Carrier Airport, providing the available ground space to be developed for Air Passenger Aircraft use. The intent, as I understood it, was to invest in the two reliever airports to develop their capacity to serve the General Aviation Community. In developing these two airports, investment in infrastructure and maintenance of these airports was recognized as being necessary to continue attracting General Aviation. b. I have not had the opportunity to read what research has been conducted as to the current or future development of a business and marketing plan to enhance development of aviation services for the local business community nor for the support of business tenants at these airports. I have not seen what businesses, within a 25 to 40 mile radius of Troutdale, use or have the potential to use, general aviation in their businesses. It is my understanding that many businesses are finding the use of general aviation to be more convenient and enhance their use of time by using this form of transport, as opposed to adhering to a schedule with airlines that require more time lost in adhering to airline schedules. c. I have not been privy to the use of airline fuel flowage fees in relation to being used by the Port to support Hillsboro and Troutdale airports. The need for these airports to be self supporting is a commendable goal but, the overriding need to have a viable reliever airport, with well established Fixed Base Operators capable of providing aircraft support for these aircraft, that will attract general aviation and business support aircraft away from Portland International Airport, would seem to fit the goal of providing a system supporting the coordinated growth of Airline Service to the region as well as support of general aviation users to and from and residing permanently in the area. Today s supply of future airline pilots is currently being met by former military pilots changing career goals and by private pilots, using general aviation flight training schools. This supply of pilots is rapidly diminishing, especially by the need for future airline pilots being required to have more time in the cockpit before being hired. Using airline generated fuel flowage fees to enhance the position of businesses 14

15 providing aviation opportunities for future flyers would seem to be a cost effective goal for both the reliever airports, the airlines and general aviation throughout the state. d. The Troutdale airport capacity should not be reduced but, should be planned to enhance the potential for accommodating future business aircraft to service east county businesses, in terms of enhanced ramp space and runway capacity to service a broader category of business aircraft. The Port should not be in the business of attracting future business aircraft to the Portland International airport, thereby, reducing the potential of current and future business aircraft use of the reliever airports with their ability to enhance the revenue needed by aviation support businesses to survive and continue serving the general aviation community. e. Traffic counts. I would be interested in seeing the rationale for development of the Troutdale aviation traffic counts and how traffic estimates were arrived at when the control tower was closed. In light of the increased numbers of aircraft based at the Aurora and Hillsboro airports, perhaps the forecasting of anticipated aircraft operations and anticipated basing of aircraft at airports needs to be re-aligned to the new realities of aircraft populations more closely following business and population growth development along transit corridors with the accompanying residential development supporting these new businesses. The methodology for forecasting future operations at airports seems to have been in place for a number of years and perhaps, this methodology is in need of being updated to reflect changing times, needs, use of assets and expectations for future development. f. Not having seen the Oregon State Department of Transportation Traffic Development Plan for the area between Blue Lake Park and the Sandy river, it would be instructive to see how much attention to coordination, between the various modes of transportation and their needs for service by that system, was considered in developing that plan in concert with other existing and future plans for the area. These comments have been submitted, in the near term, with a short term review of current information from parties contacted by myself in gathering some information on the current plans and from my past aviation experiences in the State and Aviation Community. 15

16 Overall, I would like to say, the Port has done a commendable job in developing Portland International Airport for future Airline travelers. I believe that the Port, as a beneficiary of the aviation community as a whole, could advocate for development of the entirety of aviation in general without detracting from others in using the aviation system. Thank you for your attention to these comments. Sincerely, Thomas E. Highland PO BOX Portland, Oregon and PO BOX Lakewood, WA, Telephone: