Practices in Preserving and Developing Public-Use Seaplane Bases (2015)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

43 CHAPTER SIX CHALLENGES AND GAPS IN PRACTICE This chapter pulls together survey responses and the literature on the challenges SPB operators face in trying to develop and preserve SPBs, or in conducting the many operational aspects described in previous chapters. Gaps in practice can be related to the challenges. Both are presented in the chapter, as well as possible means to address either. Gaps in practice are related to the differences between what is discovered in the research portion of a synthesis study and what may be possible or achievable, based on current knowledge. A number of gaps were observed in this study. DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES Foremost as a development challenge is the gaining of permission to operate an SPB on a particular body of water. The author- ity to establish and operate an SPB lies with a number of federal, state, and local bodies. Operating an SPB normally involves obtaining a permit or license. The SPB is then subject to annual inspections to ensure safety and compliance with applicable regulations. Obtaining the requisite permits is often a lengthy challenge, especially if opposition exists or if an environmental study is required. Varying regulations across the country and a lack of ready accessibility are significant challenges to sea- plane pilots, because it makes it difficult to know what regulations apply to which bodies of water in each state, and where they can and cannot operate. In an open-ended question, SPB operators were asked to identify threats, barriers, and impediments to their continued operation {Q32, Q33}. Threat descriptions varied with the type of SPB operation, geographic location, and type of ownership or control. The general state of the economy was identified as the greatest perceived impediment to further SPB development, as the concern reflects the level of demand for services and the financial and capital cost of providing services. One example is a comment that an operator felt pressure to cut expenses and possibly rent or sell the SPB property to a commercial fish net repair company. Other threats, barriers, and impediments identified were • Limited demand for services, especially for SPBs operated by resorts or sporting lodges • Overall cost of flying • Cost of taxes, permit fees, and insurance • Lack of funding for infrastructure investment • Availability and cost of space to expand land facilities • Low numbers of seaplane pilots to contribute to the economic impact Chatham Municipal Airport (MA) SPB was decertified by the state of Massachusetts in 1999 owing to inadequate water landing area length and obstructions in the approach paths. In updating their airport layout plan in 2003, the recertification of the SPB was considered. During the evaluation it was determined that an application to the FAA and Massachusetts Aeronautical Commission for recertification would trigger the development of a SPB Master Plan and ALP. The MP and ALP study would investigate water quality and depths, obstacle clearance approach parameters, evaluation of easement needs, and an infrastructure analysis. Additionally, permits for developing the water and shore interface, docking facilities, and land infrastructure would need to be obtained from the USACE and the U.S. Coast Guard. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection would require an evaluation of the environmental impacts under NEPA and their own MEPA. A Development of Regional Impact Permit (DRI) would be needed from the Cape Cod Commission (CCC). Lastly, to comply with the Wetlands Protection Act (WPA), a Wetland Order of Conditions would need to be obtained from the Chatham Conservation Commission (CCC). The following factors resulted in the recommendation to not pursue recertification: the cost for planning, obstruction removal, environmental constraints; the need to seek waivers for FAA and the Massachusetts Airport Commission, the little to no demand for SPB use. However, seaplanes can still use the pond at their own risk. Source: Runway and Terminal Area Study and Airport Layout Plan Update 2001–2021 (2003).

44 • Lack of public understanding; public sentiment against seaplane operation • Number of competing boat and recreational activities • Residential encroachment • Environmental regulation and issues such as noise and invasive species propagation • Competition from wheeled aircraft at airports with instrument procedures • Competition from the ferry system • Weather conditions that preclude consistent operations. To address the threats and barriers {Q34}, survey respondents provided ideas that covered both technical and philosophi- cal possibilities: • Promoting pilot awareness of community noise sensitivity • Getting pilots to attend and advocate before community councils • Eliminating permit fees for noncommercial operations • Providing grant funding • Enacting zoning and other encroachment protections • Separating seaplane docks from marina areas • Increasing flight activity • Advocacy for change at the federal, state, and local levels. To gain a better sense of the challenges facing SPB operators, they were asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5 to what extent each of 31 items were a major issue or concern to them for the future existence or development of their SPB {Q35}. The rating scale was identified as 1–major concern; 2–some concern; 3–neutral; 4–little concern; and 5–no concern. Table 9 reflects the rankings based on the average of the responses. The rankings support many of the other survey findings addressed in this report. As stated in previous sections, the diversity of types of operational activity, funding support, and governing ownership prevent meaningful statistical analysis of the data. When asked what organizations or groups present a difficult challenge for their SPB {Q36}, 26 of the 31 SPB operators indicated they do not have any organizations adversely affecting them. The remaining five operators cited individually the FAA, the local environmental protection agency, the local land use commission, a local “friends of” community organiza- tion, and the local DNR representative as posing difficulties for them. The responses reflect the individualistic nature of barriers that can vary with the type of SPB operation, geographic location, and type of ownership or control. As a follow-up to the previous question, SPB operators where asked how they respond to difficult organizations {Q37}. The responses reflect the basic need for increased communication, such as meeting with them face-to-face, working with them, and generally educating them. As one operator, who did not identify a difficult organization, wrote: “We strive to maintain a welcoming, useful, and safe presence for users and visitors.” SAFETY CHALLENGES As reported by survey respondents, the following list and number of responses in parentheses identify what are considered to be safety challenges for SPB operation {Q38}: • Mixture of boats and recreational activity in water runway area (12) • Wildlife, primarily seabirds and geese (5) • Line of site availability at SPB having an ATCT on adjacent land airport (2) • Water surface obstacles (2) • Fluctuating water levels (1) • Alluvial fan deposits (1) • Dock pilings (1) • Docks in disrepair (1) • Integrating sea and land operations (1) • Grass growth (1) • Weather (1) • Pilot communication (1) • Vandalism (1).

45 Interviews and the literature review did not turn up any specific inspection guide for SPB facilities. In general, inspec- tions were primarily accomplished using excerpts from the inspection requirements found in 14 CFR Part 139, use of FAA Form 5010, or from individual state standards requirements. Inspections concentrated on checking the approach surfaces from the shore or through the use of satellite earth displays on the web. Inspectors were primarily from the state aviation agencies, the FAA for those SPBs affiliated with a Part 139 airport, and inspection contractors hired by either the state or the FAA. It was not reported that other governmental agencies inspect SPBs on a regular basis or to the same level as a dedicated aviation inspector. AIRSPACE CHALLENGES The shoreline of a seaplane base can be a challenge for aircraft takeoff and landing, primarily as it affects the arrival and departure paths to the water landing area. The growth of trees; the construction of buildings; the presence of power poles, cellular towers, and boat masts; rising terrain; the overflight of a residential area; and the proximity to other airports are other TABLE 9 RANKING OF MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS TO SEAPLANE BASE OPERATORS Rank Rating Major Issue or Concern 1 2.50 Boat, recreational, or other waterway use or traffic 2 2.52 Adequate tie-down and/or hangar capability 3 2.57 Availability of capital development funding 4 2.68 Adequate docking area 5 2.73 Presence of obstacles in the approach or departure path 6 2.77 Spillage of fuel, oil, or similar 7 2.97 Funding of daily operations 8 3.13 Public sanitary facilities 9 3.17 Risk and liability exposure 10 3.20 Deteriorating facilities such as ramps and docks 11 3.27 Cost of risk and liability insurance 12 3.30 Environmental regulation 13 3.33 Public acceptance or support for SPB operation 14 3.39 Availability of local ground transportation for seaplane users 15 3.42 Availability of fuel 16 3.47 Unsafe seaplane pilot operation 17 3.52 Public signage or way finding to your SPB 18 3.52 Water, sewer, or other public utility provisions 19 3.53 Invasive species control 20 3.60 Local law enforcement understanding of SPB operation 21 3.61 Availability to pilots of current information about your SPB 22 3.63 Availability of aircraft maintenance 23 3.63 Regulatory oversight 24 3.63 Noise complaints from the community 25 3.63 Too-low or too-high water levels 26 3.73 Available wind and weather information for pilots 27 3.83 Impact on fish and/or wildlife 28 3.93 Cost of local taxes, fees, or permits 29 3.93 Silt or dredging issues 30 3.97 Availability to pilots of an eating or lodging establishment 31 4.26 Availability of Wi-Fi or Internet services Source: SMQ Airport Services {Q35}.

46 examples of airspace challenges. Should an airspace analysis be recommended or required, the expense of conducting the analysis can be a hindrance to the sponsor of the SPB or study. Approval of an official SBLP can require local communities in proximity to the SPB to file FAA Form 7460-1 Notice of Proposed Construction and Alteration for any construction or alteration on their property. This can be a challenge to the protection of the airspace if local land use and building codes are not enacted, or if the SPB operator does not monitor local building and construction activity. MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES While various authorities have rules and regulations governing seaplane operations on their respective water bodies, many of those rules and regulations detail the responsibility of the pilot to ascertain whether seaplane operations are permitted, prohibited, or restricted for a particular body of water. Additionally, pilots are required to know the boating laws of each governing authority. The continued development and preservation of SPBs often falls to an entrepreneurial sponsor or champion from either the public or private sector to spearhead the effort. Ownership by a local governmental entity, such as a municipality, can be a solu- tion because it may be in a better position to fund developmental effort and qualify for state or federal funding. A gap exists in the recording of operational data. A review of FAA Form 5010 for the surveyed SPBs shows much of the data to be several years old and not consistent in their reporting period. Some were listed weekly, some monthly, and some annually. Annual operations reflect a 12-month activity level. Many SPBs operate only during the summer months. The opera- tional figures reported for the shortened seasons were then extrapolated to reflect a 12-month level, even though no activity occurred during the winter months. The General Accounting Office found in 2012 that an FAA survey of general aviation activity has methodological and conceptual limitations (General Aviation Safety 2012). As in any business, there may exist a time when one needs to seek or rely on outside support and expertise to maintain busi- ness operations, or to address new or novel situations. In the case of 14 SPB operators, their “go to” persons included individuals from the FAA, state aviation departments, and a plethora of seaplane pilot associations, both local and national {Q39}. Seventeen (17) operators, however, could not identify a knowledgeable source or contact within the FAA, state, or other organizations to obtain expertise, guidance, or information on SPB operation, design, or funding issues. To address the need for knowledge or awareness of SPB issues, a number of sources are available to assist SPB operators {Q40}. Nineteen respondents indicated they are members of a seaplane or similar pilot organization, nine are members of airport management organizations, three are members of a local governing or planning commission, and one is a member of a marine trade association. Thirteen respondents do not belong to any trade organization. An issue raised in the initial scope for this report suggested that local law enforcement lacks knowledge of the operating rules and requirements of seaplanes. The survey sought to identify ways to better inform law enforcement and policy makers about SPB operations {Q41}. None of the respondents indicated this is an issue for them, though one suggested it could be because of constant personnel turnover within the enforcement organizations. The general consensus is that open communi- cation and education are solutions to such issues. Conducting a departmental briefing, providing a handout, engaging a local pilot association to educate pilots, offering an airport tour, and having pilots participate in emergency training exercises were all offered as suggestions to improve knowledge and relationships. SPBs appear to be thriving in states that have active and supportive state aviation organizations. The laws of the state and the missions of the state aviation agencies recognize the importance and value of SPBs within the SASP. Further support is needed from local governments, and evidence exists that support is developing in certain states. As with any political effort within state and local governments, a strong advocate is often necessary to maintain those efforts. FUNDING CHALLENGES SPBs face a number of obstacles and constraints on the allocation of resources for developing, operating, and maintaining SPB facilities, as detailed in chapter three. At the federal level, support for airport development has declined during the period of June

47 2007 to June 2014 (Dillingham 2014). At the state level, lack of funding or support is evidenced by an economic development study conducted for the Lakes Region in the state of New Hampshire [Lake Region Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) 2013 Report 2013]. As a result of state budget reductions, no funding has been provided for any of New Hampshire’s 24 public-use airports (including the one SPB in the region) for the 4 years prior to the study. FAA’s tool for identifying future airport capital projects that are eligible for AIP grants is the NPIAS and airport capital improvement program. To help rank the importance of the numerous capital projects submitted by eligible airports, the FAA uses a priority system based on the type of airport and project. SPBs have difficulty meeting the priority parameters. For SPBs open to the public and seeking to generate revenue through the renting or leasing of slips, tiedowns, and storage, the economic principal of supply and demand comes into play. The same is true for the performance of aircraft maintenance. As noted in one study considering the development of a new SPB, an analysis of what users would be willing to pay for the services provided would not support the full cost of constructing or maintaining the proposed floatplane facility. It would need to be subsidized in some manner (Economic Feasibility Study of a New Floatplane Facility Located in Anchorage, Alaska 2008). While the study evaluated a large SPB, the development and construction of an SPB of any size could benefit from the development of a business plan to help determine future sustainability. ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES Because SPBs are located on water, the presence of wildlife can be a challenge. Seabird activity is expected and is more difficult to prevent or disperse than wildlife mitigation techniques used at land-based airports. The growth of sea grass and weeds along the shore and in the water also present a difficulty, as removal must comply with environmental regulations. Invasive Species Invasive species are a major concern and challenge for SPB operators and pilots. The term “invasive species” is defined as “an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health” (Executive Order 13112 1999). Seaplanes, like boats and other watercraft, can transport invasive species by organisms that have attached themselves to the hulls or pontoons, or by organisms existing in the pontoons that are eventually pumped out at a site different from their origin. The invasive species concern is not just for transmission, but for the possibility of broad restrictive actions taken to prevent seaplane access to water bodies. A state or federal agency may seek to use the potential of invasive species transmittal as an opportunity to restrict seaplane operations. An example is the state of New Mexico Parks Division’s attempt to prohibit seaplane operations within the state park system (Amendment to 19.5.2 NMAC 2012). The effort was not successful because the Bureau of Reclamation and USACE had already enacted regulations addressing seaplanes use and the spread of invasive species. This is an example of how several different governmental agencies have power over the waterways and may be at cross-purposes. Prevention is the most important step in managing invasive species. The SPA and others have placed emphasis on increas- ing awareness and on reducing and preventing introductions. Voluntary guidelines and educational presentations exist for SPB operators and users (USCG-2000-7206 2000; Aquatic Invasive Species 2014). Sound and Noise Noise can clearly be an issue for seaplanes and SPB operators. Recognizing that noise is defined as any unwanted sound, some SPBs are located where the sound of seaplanes is welcoming and others where it is not. The perception of noise from any aircraft may be more related to what the sound represents than the actual sound itself (Noise Exposure Maps Update 2008). Opposition to the sound of any motorized vehicle or vessel in remote areas is understood to be a distraction from normal peace and quiet. For this reason and others, water bodies such as Waldo Lake in Oregon have been placed off-limits to seaplanes as a result of restrictions seeking to preserve the tranquility of the area (Use of Motors Prohibited on Certain Lakes 2013; Restrictions for Waldo Lake 2013). The challenge for SPB operators is to ensure discrimination does not exist with the allowance of other pow- ered watercraft, or that information provided to the public about the actual noise level is not misrepresented. Seaplane engine and propeller combinations can result in high decibel levels for short periods of time. The high decibel reading is considered unwanted sound to many. Advances in aircraft design and technology can help reduce noise level expo-

48 sure. Reducing the speed of the propeller tip reduces the decibel generated (Marte and Kurtz 1970). A common practice for seaplane operators or piston-engine aircraft is to change from a two-bladed propeller to three- or four-bladed propeller; doing so results in a decibel reduction without affecting the horsepower output of the engine. Beyond technological solutions, the challenge is to reduce the decibel level, either by design or by relocating it in space or time (Quilty 2004/2005). Relocating sound in space means the farther away the source of sound is from the recipient, the lower the decibel level. For this reason, a water landing area’s layout can reduce noise levels by locating a takeoff farther from shore, or by minimizing aircraft overflight in populated areas. Reducing sound by relocating the source in time means operating the aircraft when the impact will have less effect on people. For instance, while seaplanes can operate from dusk until dawn, commercial operators on Lake Union in Seattle, Washington, voluntarily do not operate before 8 a.m., even though daylight comes much earlier during the high-demand summer months. In selling the concept of seaplane activity to residents of Tavares, Florida, city administrators explained to local residents that seaplane activity most likely would occur on the weekends rather than during the weekday, and only during daylight hours in either case. FAA Handbook H8083-23 informs seaplane pilots that a night water landing should generally be con- sidered only in an emergency, and that it can be extremely dangerous because of the difficulty of seeing objects in the water, judging surface conditions, and avoiding large waves or swells. New Iberia, Louisiana, is the only airport in the contiguous United States that has a lighted waterway. It is a water trench parallel to a land runway and has lights along the bank to provide the necessary visual reference to a pilot when landing at night. FAA cumulative noise methodology involves the calculation of noise exposure over a 24-hour period. With no nighttime operations and few daytime operations at SPBs, exceeding the cumulative 65-decibel Day-Night Level standard for noise abatement mitigation can be rare, if it occurs at all. The U.S. Parks and Forest Divisions of the Department of Interior has regulations on its bodies of water establishing a maximum noise level of 75dB(A) for vessels under way and 88dB(A) for stationary vessels, per Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards J1970 (SAE J1970 2011) and J2005 (SAE J2005 2011), respectively (36 CFR 3.15). COMPATIBILITY CHALLENGES The general public’s lack of familiarity about SPB facilities, services, operation, and benefits can result in opposition to exist- ing and future development. Typical concerns identified through the literature search, interviews, and the survey include the following issues and risks: • Interference with expected tranquility through noise generation • Visual disruption of scenic view • Potential conflict with other motorized or nonmotorized vessels • Environmental risk for water and air pollution from usage, accidents, and fuel spills • Introduction of invasive species and other aquatic disturbances • Disagreement over the concept of public purpose within the community • Alternative public or private development and uses for SPB facilities • Cross-purposes of various agencies missions, goals, or objectives. GAPS IN PRACTICE The literature research and the survey raised issues and gaps in practice that can most effectively be summarized by the following: • Confusing use and application of the term “seaplane base” • Not being able to easily determine the number of active seaplane pilots and aircraft • Not being able to collect accurate or useful data on SPB activity • Inconsistency in operational activity data collected as a result of seasonal use • Differences in the level of SPB operator awareness or availability of data on the design of SPBs • Unclear inspection criteria or absence of inspection guides for SPB facilities • Desire for better information or support from governmental agencies in the promotion and preservation of SPBs

49 • Better guidance on emergency and community response to a seaplane incident • Use of economic impact models to demonstrate the value and contribution of SPB operations. SUMMARY SPB development and preservation faces numerous threats, pressures, and challenges. Issues such as safety, management, funding, regulation, airspace, noise, sea and wildlife, invasive species, and public opposition are found across the nation. From an operational safety perspective, the biggest challenge is operating on the water with a mix of boat and recreational activity. From a developmental perspective, gaining permission to operate an SPB on a body of water and funding are the two main challenges. For the continued preservation of SPBs, the general state of the economy is the greatest perceived impediment. Limited demand, the cost of flying, and low numbers of seaplane pilots contribute to the challenge of preserving SPBs. A further impediment is a lack of public understanding of SPB operation, including the cross-purposes of governmental entities in fulfilling their mission and goals. The continued development and preservation of SPBs often relies on having a sponsor or champion from either the public or private sector. SPBs appear to be thriving in those states that have active and supportive state aviation agencies.