NOAA has proposed new rules regarding the overflight of wildlife refuges and Sanctuaries on Washington's Olympic Peninsula north of Copalis State to Cape Flattery. This rule would restrict all flight below 2000' and change sectional charts to "no flight below 2000" instead of the current "2000' recommended". This area is usually plagued by low ceilings and below an MOA so this is a pretty decent airspace grab that could prevent overflight of the remote WA coast in all but severe clear. Does NOAA rulemaking trump the FAA?

Hotrod150 this is your backyard. Any local news?

Proposed rule:Sec. 922.152 Prohibited or otherwise regulated activities.

(a) * * *
(6) Disturbing marine mammals or seabirds by flying motorized
aircraft at less than 2,000 feet over the waters within one nautical
mile of the Flattery Rocks, Quillayute Needles, or Copalis National
Wildlife Refuges or within one nautical mile seaward from the coastal
boundary of the Sanctuary, except for activities related to Tribal
timber operations conducted on reservation lands, or to transport
persons or supplies to or from reservation lands as authorized by a
governing body of an Indian Tribe. Failure to maintain a minimum
altitude of 2,000 feet above ground level any over such waters is
presumed to disturb marine mammals or seabirds.

Link to comment:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;dct=N+PR+FR+O;cp=O;rpp=10;so=DESC;sb=postedDate;po=0;s=%5B0908041219%E2%80%930073%E2%80%9302

AOPA article:
http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2011/110104national_marine-sanctuary_overflight_rule_comment.html

There was an article in yesterday's Peninsula Daily News (Port Angeles) about this. It quoted the NOAA rep as saying this ammendment won't change the 2,000' overflight restrictions: "It's always been a regulation" said sanctuary education coordinator Robert Steelquist. He said it would change the notation on aeronautical sectionals from"recommended" to "required".
"This reflects a long long discussion that the sanctuary has had with the FAA" Steelquist said.
For those who don't know, this Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary actually encompasses three separate Nat'l Wildlife Refuges ( Flattery Rocks, Quillayute Needles, & Copalis) and covers a continuous 95 mile stretch of the Washington coastline, from Copalis State Airport to Cape Flattery (the most WNW point in the continental US). This proposal is in addition to similar restrictions already in place over Olympic National Park, which encompasses almost half of the entire Olympic Peninsula.

Figured I would bump this back to the top as the February 7th deadline to comment is approaching. I know this specific proposed rule doesn't impact many of us on BCP, but it could set a precedent for other government agencues to restrict airspace over their piece of the world.

The "presumed to be disturbing wildlife" concerns me, guilty until proven innocent I guess. There are no exceptions for inclement weather, safety or pattern operations at Copalis State (adjacent to the proposed restrictions).

Link to comment:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NOAA-NOS-2009-0237-0002

Sent my commit in. I'm sure they won't like it either.

RobBurson wrote:Sent my commit in. I'm sure they won't like it either.

Ya mine either. I did my taxes today so I wasn't really feeling friendly to the US Government.

Well it did not go well, they are no longer proposed, they are in place Feb 27. If you violate NOAA's airspace the burden is on the pilot to prove no animals were disturbed.

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2012/120202west-coast-sanctuary-overflight-now-a-gamble.html

If you are bored read through NOAA's answer to pilot comments on p2-3:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-01-26/pdf/2012-1593.pdf

An example of the typical NOAA response:


13. Comment: The Olympic Coast
National Marine Sanctuary regulation
would create a safety concern. Cloud
ceilings are typically at 2000 to 2500
feet in this sanctuary. FAA requires
pilots to remain 500 feet below clouds
to maintain safe flight, but doing so
would routinely violate NOAA’s
regulation.
Response: This rule does not change
the applicable long-standing minimum
altitudes that are codified in the
regulations for the Olympic Coast
National Marine Sanctuary and the
national marine sanctuaries off
California. These existing regulations
have not created a safety issue of this
nature in the 18 years since OCNMS
was designated. Nonetheless, if weather
conditions are such that maintaining
visual flight rules (VFR) cannot be
achieved while avoiding the flight
ceiling, rather than violating the
overflight regulations the pilot could
instead choose to do any of the
following: (1) Avoid flying over
sanctuary waters by flying inland; (2) fly
instrument flight rules (IFR) through the
clouds; or (3) fly above the clouds

Rather peculiar.....Cutting down a tree on tribal lands is not as disturbing to wildlife as flying around 2000' above the wildlife.

Kinda like finding old bones... if a private or government project turns up indian bones the whole project gets kiboshed-- reference the floating bridge pontoon contruction yard boondoggle in Por Angeles a few years ago. But if bones are found on a tribal project, a few cedar boughs are waved around a quick ceremonial fire & the work picks up again the next day.
Are boats & hikers excluded from the marine sanctuary area, or made to stay at least 2,000' away from the water? Someone/something on the surface would seem to me to be more intrusive than an airplane 500 feet above.

Hmm. I don't understand the 2000' rule. I suspect the recommended 2000' was simply carried over.if the recommendation had previously been 1000', the proposed law would be talking about 1000', not 2000'.

The big deal is that the 2,000' minimum altitude is now mandatory, not just recommended. And the new rule apparently means that you can be cited for being too low, and it's up to YOU to prove that you did NOT disturb any wildlife-- guilty until proven innocent, not the other way around.

Yikes. This is bad.

I was reported by a person in 1987 for flying over a national monument in Colorado and "buzzing houses". The person knew me, so used my name in the report as the offender. I wasn't even in the state on the day in question. Next thing I knew, the FAA was all over my high-school butt...no tail number, no appeal, no process, just wanted to immediately revoke my ticket with little else but a letter and a request to send in my license. Only after pleading with somebody at the FAA did they notice that the complaint was about a twin engine low winger, not the Pacer I flew. I can see the wheels of the NOAA spin as they issue fines based on some sort of "trained" eye (whatever that is).

Whoever wrote the responses was also clueless about actual FAA regulations, yet brave enough to write it down to make the cluelessness part of the official public record.

Planes with three inch tail numbers and no transponder will eventually command a premium price.

hotrod150 wrote:The big deal is that the 2,000' minimum altitude is now mandatory, not just recommended. And the new rule apparently means that you can be cited for being too low, and it's up to YOU to prove that you did NOT disturb any wildlife-- guilty until proven innocent, not the other way around.

I agree. I would be happy to comply with recommended 2000' altitude like that over the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge if safe weather conditions allow. When protecting the birds trumps safety it is not ok. The worst part was the fact there really didn't seem to be much a issue with aircraft disturbing wildlife in the past so this mostly seemed like an airspace grab.

I was really surprised that the FAA make as decision on this, last time I checked they regulate airspace not NOAA.

So this is something AOPA should weigh in on not to mention EAA and possibly others. Does anyone know if they were in the loop on this? After all what do those yearly subscriptions buy us anyway? Is there a Wasington State Pilots Association or similar?

blackrock wrote:So this is something AOPA should weigh in on not to mention EAA and possibly others. Does anyone know if they were in the loop on this? After all what do those yearly subscriptions buy us anyway? Is there a Wasington State Pilots Association or similar?

AOPA did weigh in. A bunch of us sent in comments. The FAA abdicated its responsibility and NOAA gave us the finger. See for example their response comment no. 13 in the original post. Apparently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is not aware that there is sometimes ice in clouds below the MEAs, and that clouds can obscure terrain. That's not a problem for them in their Twotter, though.

The next step will likely have to be someone getting busted and spending a bunch of time and money on the legal process challenging the regulations. This should be a good fund raiser for the AOPA legal services plan from us west coasters. Sad to say but this is probably the least of our worries. Between 6 buck avgas, the end of 100ll, aging pilots throwing in the towel, increasing maintenance costs and the ADS-B mandate, there aren't going to be many of us left to complain about BS airspace grabs.

On the bright side, I did go with a bunch of cub scouts for a tour of the tower at the home drome yesterday. It was great and the kids loved it. I'm gonna have to do a bunch of young eagles flights to get over this funk.

CAVU (for now)

It certainly isn't getting any easier. Just got the hangar tax bill to add to everything else you mentioned. I'm afraid we won't recognize this country in another 20 years or less. I'll leave it at that to keep this out of hot air.

FWIW, I think they just invited us to make some low flyby's just on principle. After all there are a lot of planes out there and according to the uninformed they are all Cessnas.

blackrock wrote:It certainly isn't getting any easier. Just got the hangar tax bill to add to everything else you mentioned. I'm afraid we won't recognize this country in another 20 years or less. I'll leave it at that to keep this out of hot air.

FWIW, I think they just invited us to make some low flyby's just on principle. After all there are a lot of planes out there and according to the uninformed they are all Cessnas.

Anyone down that low in a preserve had better keep a careful eye out for the NOAA Twotter and helos. They do their aerial photo surveys of whales and dolphins "between 150 and 200 meters" above the water, according to one of their own published papers. Nice pictures, though.

Here is a link to the helpful guidance NOAA provides to report a suspected violation. http://farallones.noaa.gov/eco/seabird/seabird_report.html. Anyone can check the boxes and the burden shifts to us to rebut the presumption that wildlife was disturbed. Of course, any notice of violation won't come until weeks or months after the event and it will be impossible to reconstruct weather conditions and whether any birds or mammals (other than Eco NIMBYs) were present, let alone disturbed. This agency really needs its budget cut.

CAVU