Website: www.StopOlyAirportGrowth.org

Email: StopOlyAirportGrowth@gmail.com

Facebook: Stop Olympia Airport Growth

Click here to read the appeal filed 3/14/2025 that challenges the Port's woefully inadequate environmental review of its Master Plan Update.

This Petition to Port of Olympia Commissioners states: "I am a resident of Thurston County. I oppose any plan to expand air traffic at the Olympia Regional Airport. Please protect our county's quality of life by voting against any such plan."

The Port of Olympia has been making plans quietly for years to greatly expand Olympia Airport air traffic. The current Airport Master Plan Update draft is one giant step forward to reaching that goal. It also violates environmental laws. The Commissioners should require Port staff to fix it so that it complies with the law. They might vote on this on Monday, March 24, 2025, after a public hearing at 5:30 p.m. at the Olympics Room, 626 Columbia Street NW, Suite 1B, Olympia, WA 98501.

The Port set an aggressive path for airport growth far beyond what is needed to accommodate the 1 percent annual growth that the Port forecasts for aviation demand in the future. The Port has said that the FAA requires this Master Plan Update. But nobody at the FAA is telling the Port to fill that plan with unnecessary pork. The Port, not the FAA, is "responsible for deciding when and where airport development is needed and for building and operating airport facilities." FAA Order 5050.4B, para. 201(a).

The demand for air cargo capacity has skyrocketed due to the growth of online retailers. Amazon-type businesses are creating a huge desire for more air cargo capacity around the country. Projections indicate significant growth in regional air cargo demand, with expectations to more than double by 2050. This anticipated increase could present future opportunities for the Olympia Airport to develop and expand its air cargo services, especially if capacity constraints arise at larger hubs like Sea-Tac. The draft Plan would enable the Olympia Airport to become a regional air cargo distribution center. The Port indicates that the airport could accommodate air cargo carriers using single or twin-engine aircraft. This would result in a dramatic increase in air ultrafine particulate matter (UFP) and noise pollution in our county. With all the new huge warehouses recently built and planned in Tumwater, cargo flights would likely be occurring at all hours. Warehouse jobs are typically not good jobs. Amazon warehouses drain local economies because they take more money out than they put in. Virtually all the warehouse jobs are temporary at Amazon, with no opportunity to become permanent. Moreover, the claim that warehouses are good for Tumwater because they bring in jobs is incorrect. Thurston County does not suffer from a lack of jobs. It has a stable job market, since it's the capital city.

A statewide group is looking for existing airports that could be expanded, and the Port is offering up the Olympia Airport. To help accommodate a projected capacity deficiency at SeaTac of 400,000 annual operations, the Legislature established a group to investigate which airports might handle overflow from SeaTac. The Olympia Airport is one being considered. The Master Plan Update shows plans for an enlarged 259,000 sq. ft. commercial (passenger and cargo service) aviation area, a new 40,000 sq. ft. terminal with 610 parking spaces, parking/loading/unloading area for aircraft, 6 gates, 40,000 sq. ft. aircraft deicing area, a new helipad, and 131 new hangars for private aircraft and larger jets. (See below for source links.)

The Plan's proposed developments would threaten the wells that provide most of Tumwater's drinking water. Bush Wellhead, which is a mile west of the airport by Bush Middle School, is now Tumwater's largest source of drinking water. See also pdf page 27 here and also pdf page 87 here (at figure 3-7). The airport is in the Bush Wellhead's protection zone. See map here. That means, it is in the zone where contamination of well-water is a risk. The Master Plan includes a 40,000 sq. ft. de-icing facility. De-icing chemicals are not safe in drinking water. The chemicals could leak into the aquifer supplying the water for the Bush Wellhead. De-icing facilities are engineered to minimize leaks into groundwater, but leaks can still occur if systems are not properly maintained or if they fail due to wear and tear, improper design, or extreme weather events.

The large amount of new impervious surface planned would likely diminish drinking water supplies and hurt salmon runs. A 2001 study found a significant amount of seepage and springs just east of the airport at the Deschutes River. A prior study (see pdf page 10) found that much of the instream flow in the Deschutes in the south Tumwater area is from groundwater, except during winter when it is from rain. The airport is in a critical aquifer recharge area - extreme (CARA I), which means it sits on the most pervious soil with the highest water table that is most susceptible to contamination from spills. It is also the most important soil for recharging the aquifer from which we obtain drinking water, and in turn, from which the Deschutes maintains its instream flows. The Department of Ecology already deems the river as high risk for low instream flows (which endangers salmon by elevating the temperature). Click here and see pdf page 8. The river is 1,200 feet away. Because of the speed of the recharge, it would not be possible to prevent spills from polluting the river. Additionally, paving over the CARA I soils would reduce instream flows further. These are all the same effects that the county hydrologist found for a proposed development a mile south of the airport (called BAR Holdings/Salish Landing) on Old Highway 99. The two sites share the same hydrological dynamics with the river. Click here and go to page 2 of his report on BAR Holdings.

Myth: The Port has no choice but to expand air traffic. The FAA requires this expansion of air traffic at the Olympia Airport because the airport has to meet projections of air traffic growth due to population growth in the county.

Fact: While the FAA generally supports necessary airport growth, it must also balance those needs with the public good, environmental protection, and safety concerns. As the proponent of the improvement, the airport owner (also called “the sponsor”) is responsible for identifying all environmental issues. See FAA Overview on Environmental Review for Airports. When airport growth poses environmental, health, or safety risks (such as contaminating water sources, threatening local wildlife habitats, or negatively impacting air quality), the FAA will consider those factors in its decision-making. In these cases, the FAA may either limit, modify, or outright deny the expansion if that is needed to protect public health or to comply with environmental regulations. In other words, the FAA can decide not to fund a project if the project does not comply with health or environmental regulations. The FAA, through its Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and Environmental Assessments (EA), evaluates whether the proposed expansion is truly necessary, and whether the negative impacts can be mitigated or outweighed by the benefits of growth.

Myth: Tumwater and state agencies have no control over expansion of air traffic at the Olympia Airport.

Fact: The FAA must consider state and local water protection laws (like state wellhead protection programs). Those state and local laws can require the FAA to mitigate impacts or rethink its project scope. The FAA also must consider whether an airport expansion violates federal laws such as the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, or other environmental laws. The FAA can decide not to fund a project that does not comply with these state and federal laws. Also, Washington has what’s called “primacy” under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. That means the FAA and other federal agencies must coordinate with state agencies when projects, such as airport expansion, might impact drinking water resources. See Primacy Regulations, 40 CFR Part 142, Subpart B, 1976. Primacy means Washington state agencies are responsible for enforcing federal drinking water regulations within the state. The state Dept. of Health’s Office of Drinking Water oversees public water systems, ensuring compliance with both federal and state drinking water standards. The state has the authority to:

• Implement wellhead protection programs (like the wellhead protection area for the Bush Wellhead) and other safeguards for drinking water sources.
• Set and enforce drinking water standards (which must be at least as strict as federal standards).
• Monitor water quality and require public water systems to conduct testing.
• Take enforcement actions if a system violates regulations.

The EPA retains oversight and can step in if the state fails to meet federal enforcement requirements. However, because Washington has primacy, the FAA and other federal agencies must coordinate with state agencies when projects, such as airport expansion, might impact drinking water resources.

In addition, the City of Tumwater also has a role to play. It can delay, modify, or impose conditions on air traffic expansion if there is a legitimate environmental or drinking water risk. If the EPA determines that FAA-funded expansion would contaminate an aquifer or reduce the supplies of drinking water in that aquifer, the FAA could deny funding.

The Port's actions over the last 30 years demonstrate that it will likely continue trying to expand (and pave over our critical aquifer recharge areas) until local governments put their foot down. In 1994, an EIS on Port properties said there were no plans to expand the airport and thus no need to include the airport in the EIS. But at the same time, the EIS stated the Port had done an airport market study and was looking at "potential alternatives." Click here and go to page 135 (then use the bookmark feature to jump to other highlighted statements). After that study, there began a slow expansion of the airport's capacity and footprint. During the late 1990s to about 2001, the Port extended its runway protection zone by forcing people out of their homes along Case Road south of the airport and giving them money in return ($5.5 million total). It was extremely upsetting to those people to lose their homes. (All the deeds are available at the auditor's website. We found a deed from 1997. It was somebody's house then. Now it is a field). In 2005, the Port extended the main runway to allow more types of jets to land, so that higher speed business jets could use the airport. In 2006 it strengthened the runway. In 2008, the Port completed a $15 million improvement plan, which included removing a hump in the runway (a "line of sight" project) and strengthening the main runway to accommodate heavier aircraft. In January 2023, the Port told the Capitol Little League that it wouldn't renew their lease on land that had been home to ballfields at least since 1990 (as seen in historical aerial maps on Google Earth). The Capitol Little League in particular had leased the ballfields since 1999. The Port essentially claimed, "the FAA made us do it." After public outcry, the Port decided to allow the Little League to stay until 2028. The League is having to fundraise to try to find a new home.

Noise is considered one of the most detrimental environmental effects of aviation. There is sufficient evidence of a marked negative effect of aircraft noise exposure on children’s cognitive skills. There is also sufficient evidence that aircraft noise increases the risk of hypertension, stroke, and heart disease; disturbs sleep; and can impair sleep recuperation.

that UFP from airplanes is elevated in and around airports and flight paths, often drifting for miles. Emerging research indicates that UFP is associated with serious neurological problems and poor birth outcomes. Unlike larger particulate matter, UFP crosses the blood/brain barrier and affects the brain and also can enter placenta. The draft Plan would lure even more jets, which emit substantial UFP. But the Plan doesn't even mention the negative physical and psychological effects on Thurston County residents.

Electric airplanes will not soon replace airplanes that use fossil fuel. Aviation experts admit that, although a great concept, electric airplanes will not be happening on any large scale in the foreseeable future. One reason is that current airplanes are very expensive and they're often kept in service for more than 30 years. Even if someone comes up with an electric plane that can carry a hundred people, no for-profit airline is going to give up their still-running plane while it's in good shape and carrying 200 or more paying passengers. The Master Plan Update also discusses accommodating small (2 to 6 passengers) electric air taxis, adding to congested air space.

If you want air taxis, don't look to the Olympia Airport for that. Market forces will likely put them elsewhere. Their main advantage is the ability to bypass traditional airports by using smaller, strategically placed "Vertiports." Air taxis are vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) vehicles. They often look like big drones. They use their own special take-off and landing sites (i.e., Vertiports), which can be built on rooftops, parking garages, or near transportation hubs. Vertiports typically include charging stations, maintenance areas, and passenger boarding facilities. Some air taxis may still operate from airports for longer regional routes or to comply with air traffic regulations, but the main point of air taxis is that they don't need airports.

The Port has failed to do an in-depth environmental review as required by SEPA. There has never been a serious environmental study of direct and indirect cumulative impacts caused by airport development/growth and operations at this airport. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires an in-depth review if significant environmental impacts are “likely to occur” as a result of a non-project decision. The Port's 2/6/2025 environmental review claims that an in-depth review isn't needed until later. But the Port is ignoring the many adverse impacts that would occur if its plans materialize, including serious public health risks that come from increased emissions and noise. We need a thorough environmental review now. Waiting to do that until discrete projects begin will lead to piecemealing, which is prohibited by SEPA and NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act). It will also prevent commissioners and the public from seeing all of the many impacts that this Plan will have on our community's health.

The proposed expansion is contrary to elected officials' prior rejection of an expansion of air traffic at this airport. Several years ago, elected officials in counties throughout Western Washington were asked whether they wanted to sponsor expansion of their existing airport to help address the projected future capacity deficiency at SeaTac. Thurston County Commissioners and Port Commissioners declined to sponsor such a venture. Yet now the Master Plan Update would greatly enable far more air traffic at the Olympia airport, presenting significant health risks to the community, as well as additional financial burdens, while seriously degrading quality of life in our county.

• Expanded commercial aviation area with a new, larger passenger terminal of at least 40,000 square feet (See here at pdf pages 34, 38, 39, 42, 49)
• 610 parking spaces and room for more (See here at pdf pages 36, 42, 50)
• 131 new hangars for more aircraft including larger jets (See here at pdf pages 26, 29, 31, 32; and see here at pdf pages 15-18)
• A 259,000 square foot area for passenger and cargo aircraft parking and loading and unloading (See here at pdf pages 35, 40, 42, 50)
• 6 gates (See here at pdf pages 35, 40, 42, 50)
• 40,000 square foot deicing pad (See here at pdf pages 35, 38, 40, 43, 50)
• Helipads to accommodate increased noisy helicopter traffic (See here at pdf page 18 and see here at pdf page 26)
• 40,000 sq. ft. terminal (See here at pdf pages 34, 39, 42, 49)
• Projects that could increase capacity up to as high as 630 operations per day (315 landings and 315 takeoffs daily) (See here at pdf page 12, citing a proposed 230,000 operations per year). Current traffic of around 200 per day as of November 2022.
• Opportunities for increased operations up to 59 instrument flight rule and 98 visual flight rule takeoffs and landings per hour. (While the Port claims these numbers won’t be reached, their own Plan cites these figures as an airport potential.) (See here at pdf page 12)

The Plan is not a mere wish list. It's a plan for actual expansion of air traffic. We have heard port commissioners state that this Plan is just a wish list, and several projects will not end up getting done. But this is misleading. A master plan is essentially planning for the Port's intended projects based on projections and statistics (such as population growth). It is not a plan for things that are mere fantasy. It's true that not everything in a plan will come to pass. We can't predict the future. Port master plans are based on what the Port of Olympia wants to have happen. The Washington Supreme Court said in 2024 in King County v. Friends of Sammamish Valley that you must prepare an environmental impact statement on a whole plan if the plan at full build-out is likely to have significant environmental consequences. You cannot kick the can down the road by waiting until projects are shovel ready. Because the Port is refusing to do an environmental impact statement, it is not complying with the State Environmental Policy Act and the holding in Friends of Sammamish Valley.

The math is not adding up. It has been said that the Master Plan Update would merely increase air traffic by 5%. Yet the Port plans to double the capacity for aviation fuel storage. See pdf page 20 here. The 5% figure is incorrect for additional reasons. For example, projects in the Plan would increase capacity to 630 operations per day, compared to around 200 per day as of November 2022 (See here at pdf page 12, citing 230,000 operations per year).

Killing the gophers goes hand in hand with degrading the community's quality of life. The fate of the Olympia pocket gophers at the airport is closely tied to Thurston County's fate. The Plan states that airport growth is dependent on more hangars, and those additional hangars will be built on the prairie habitat where the threatened Olympia pocket gophers live, if the federal government approves a Habitat Conservation Plan that allows more development. See pdf pages 12, 14, 24, 26 here. So, the goal is to pave over the last remaining critical prairie habitat, killing many threatened gophers, in order to increase airport traffic that will degrade the quality of life of people living in Thurston County. This makes no sense.

Please contact us to volunteer: StopOlyAirportGrowth@gmail.com