Barry Christian stood on the new levee trail south of Napa one day recently and enjoyed the expansive views. Distant mountains, adjacent tidal wetlands and the Brazos railroad drawbridge crossing the Napa River are part of the scenery.
“I think there’s nothing like it in Napa,” said Christian, an American Canyon resident who is a county Regional Park and Open Space District board member. “I think it’s an attraction in itself.”
But to the east is the Napa County Airport, with an auxiliary runway that ends just 400 feet from the trail. County officials say the danger of a mishap should a plane overshoot the end of the runway is so great that the trail should be closed.
“The area should not be used for a trail either now or at any time in the future,” the county said in a written response to a Napa Valley Register query.
Such disputes make this a trail with a tale and a tangled tale at that.
Two county goals converge in the area west of the Napa County Airport. One is efforts by the county and regional trail advocates to create a Napa River trail extending from American Canyon through the city of Napa.
The state Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Cargill project created an opportunity to fill in a key missing link. A decade ago, the state circulated plans to turn former salt ponds with crusty, white shores into wetlands for birds and fish. Trail advocates pushed for public access.
Things went smoothly with the 2.5-mile stretch from Eucalyptus Drive in American Canyon to Green Island Road. This levee trail opened almost four years ago along mudflats, and is popular with walkers, runners and cyclists.
But the proposed trail north of Green Island Road got mired amid various controversies, leading to years of delays.
The state Department of Fish and Wildlife didn’t want a public trail north of Green Island Road because of wildlife protection concerns. In 2007, the county, the county Regional Park and Open Space District and the San Francisco Bay Trail successfully lobbied the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) to require a trail. Since the Cargill project needed a BCDC permit to move forward, that seemed to settle the issue.
A question remained – where would the trail go? The obvious choice was to use an existing levee.
But this route conflicts with another Napa County priority. Napa County wants to someday create a runway safety area on about 7 acres—including Cargill restoration land—to comply with the latest Federal Aviation Administration standards.
The county doesn’t have money allotted to buy the land from Fish and Wildlife and level the ground to make it suitable for a runway safety area. The presence of the rare salt marsh harvest mouse, with its Endangered Species Act legal protections, is a complicating factor.
As a result, nothing will happen in the immediate future.
“In the meantime, a less-than-ideal situation should not be compounded by creation of a public trail in such close proximity to the end of an active runway,” the county said its statement to The Register.
Napa County did not make airport officials available for a direct interview, but instead insisted that questions be answered in writing via the county’s public information officer.
The state Department of Fish and Wildlife has its own set of concerns. Obligated by its BCDC permit to open up a trail, it looked at various route options. Creating a trail skirting the runway safety area would mean doing environmental studies and building a new levee or a boardwalk.
After several years of consideration, the department graveled over the existing levee that passes through the proposed runway safety area and opened the yellow, metal gate at the entrance. No signs mark the trail, but it can be used by the public.
“BCDC pushed us to finish the trail, as per our permit conditions, so we did that,” said Larry Wyckoff, a senior environmental scientist for the state Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Wyckoff said he doesn’t see a safety concern related to the nearby airport runway that would rule out a trail.
“There are roads, trails at the end of runways all across the nation,” Wyckoff said.
The county in its written responses gives another viewpoint. With the end of a runway nearby, the trail “creates an undue risk to the public who may choose to enter the area.”
“Even airport staff only enter (the runway area) after coordinating access with airport management and the Federal Aviation Administration traffic control tower,” the county said.
Jim Lyon sees the airport from a pilot’s point of view. He represents the Napa Airport Pilots’ Association on the county Airport Advisory Commission.
He likes having trails, but not near the end of a runway, Lyon said.
“It’s a distraction,” he said. “You want zero accidents at the airport. Napa has a really good safety record. There are very few incidents out there and you want to keep it that way.”
Runway Six, the one near the trail, isn’t the airport’s main runway and he doesn’t land there often, Lyon said. Still, he can envision a plane landing short of the runway, especially a business jet.
It’s unclear how many planes have ended up crossing into the proposed runway safety area over the years, though this happened on at least one occasion.
On Nov. 10, 2007, a pilot failed to latch a cargo door, hydroplaned his plane on a wet runway while trying to abort the takeoff and came to rest in a canal beyond the runway, according to a National Transportation Safety Board report. This canal is next to the levee hiking trail.
The FAA told BCDC that it doesn’t want the levee trail in the potential runway safety area either. A 2014 agency memo says such a trail would be a potential hazard for hikers and for aircraft taking off and landing at the airport.
Christian walked and biked on the trail recently for about an hour. A couple of planes flew over the trail. Christian said he felt safe.
County Regional Park and Open Space General Manager John Woodbury said requirements for runway safety areas have tightened in recent years. He views the levee trail as being caught up amid stricter standards.
“When this all started, it was safe by anyone’s definition,” Woodbury said.
Safety is a matter of proportion, Woodbury said. Driving to work in the morning is probably the most dangerous thing he does, he added.
Whether the newly opened levee trail remains the permanent trail route for this area remains to be seen. The Napa County Park and Open Space District won’t pave it, just in case.
Woodbury said the levee trail issue in this area has been resolved, “at least for the time being.”
County Supervisor Brad Wagenknecht represents Napa County on BCDC. He expects the commission to have an update soon on the commission’s public access requirement for this area.
“We haven’t settled on whether this is the final answer to it yet,” Wagenknecht said.
The levee trail ends at a slough. Pushing the trail farther north toward Napa is yet another issue with its own set of complications. An extended trail would have to pass through Fish and Wildlife’s Fagan Marsh preserve, a move Wyckoff opposes because of the presence of the clapper rail and other rare species.
For now, trail advocates will settle for the levee trail. Christian sees that alone as reason to celebrate, given the long push to make the trail a reality.
“I think it’s an accomplishment that trail went through,” Christian said.
Source: http://napavalleyregister.com
NTSB Identification: LAX08CA014
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Accident occurred Saturday, November 10, 2007 in Napa, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 12/20/2007
Aircraft: Piper PA-34-200T, registration: N3038P
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
NTSB investigators used data provided by various entities, including, but not limited to, the Federal Aviation Administration and/or the operator and did not travel in support of this investigation to prepare this aircraft accident report.
The pilot stated he unloaded his passengers at the FBO and was returning to his home airport. He noted he had been distracted during the unloading and pre takeoff phases, and neglected to latch the front cargo door. During takeoff, the forward nose cargo door opened and the pilot decided to abort the takeoff. He opined that the wet runway caused the airplane to hydroplane, which made stopping difficult. The airplane overran the end of the runway, continued about 200 yards, collided with a fence, and came to rest in a canal. The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airframe or engine.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's failure to latch the cargo door during preflight.
On November 10, 2007, about 1915 Pacific standard time, a Piper PA-34-200T, N3038P, overran the runway at Napa County Airport, Napa, California. Atkin Air, LLC, was operating the airplane under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91. The commercial pilot was not injured, and the airplane sustained substantial damage. The repositioning flight departed Napa about 1915, with a planned destination of Lincoln Regional Airport - Karl Harder Field, Lincoln, California. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed, and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan had been filed.
In a written report to the National Transportation Safety Board, the pilot stated he unloaded the passengers at the FBO and was returning to Lincoln. He noted he had been distracted, and neglected to latch the front cargo door. During takeoff, the cargo door opened and the pilot decided to abort the takeoff. He opined that the wet runway caused the airplane to hydroplane, which made stopping difficult. The airplane overran the runway, continued about 200 yards, collided with a fence, and came to rest in a water-filled canal. The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airframe or engine.
No comments:
Post a Comment