A working group that has spent over a year studying potential restrictions on low flights in Marin, Sonoma and San Mateo Counties sent recommendations last week that would restrict planes, helicopters, drones and other aircraft on dozens of miles of coastline—and perhaps Tomales Bay—to the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council, which will discuss the matter at a meeting on Feb. 1.
Current low overflight rules, created by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration a few decades ago, prohibit aircraft from flying under 1,000 feet in certain areas on the West Coast, including the mouth of Tomales Bay and Double Point in Bolinas, to curtail wildlife disturbances. (The military is often exempted from the regulations.)
Current Federal Aviation Administration rules require that aircraft fly above 1,000 feet in “congested” areas such as cities, while uncongested areas have an elevation limit of only 500 feet.
But the working group’s recommendations for new zones, outlined in a 34-page report made public last week, split its members, which include four marine scientists, three pilots, a member of the Farallones advisory council and a member of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council.
In particular, the pilots refused to endorse any new regulations, writing in a statement that such rules would inappropriately assert jurisdiction over airspace governed by the F.A.A. and could end up confusing or harming pilots. While they advocated for only public outreach and education to mitigate disturbance to wildlife, other members of the working group said those tools should be coupled with enforceable rules.
Working group members also disagreed about Tomales Bay, the only area for which the group did not offer a recommendation, but instead offered two different options for the advisory council to consider.
The recommendations are the first step in a long process to adopt new low overflight zones. If the advisory council accepts them, the sanctuary superintendent would then decide whether to accept the council’s input. The sanctuary could then begin an official rulemaking process that would include public comment and an environmental assessment.
The idea to expand low overflight zones, particularly in Marin, started back in 2011. At the time, the sanctuary was working on tweaking the rules for existing zones. When it enlisted public comment for that effort, many suggested expanding the flight zones.
George Clyde, a Marshall resident who sits on the advisory council and chaired the working group, said the sanctuary received 70 comments supporting an expansion of overflight rules to all of Tomales Bay. Similar comments popped up when the sanctuary expanded its own boundaries a few years later. To address the input, the working group was established in late 2015 to assess regulating more sites. “I think it’s a credit to the sanctuary that they follow up on these comments,” Mr. Clyde said.
Many of the areas under consideration would connect or extend existing overflight zones. The proposed areas include 20 miles of coast between The Sea Ranch and Salt Point State Park in Sonoma; McClure’s Beach and Elephant Rock; and from near Chimney Rock all the way down to Double Point in Bolinas. The group also studied establishing new zones at Devil’s Slide Rock in San Mateo, Bodega Head and Tomales Bay.
The ecological importance of Tomales Bay is clear, according to the working group’s report. “Tomales Bay is probably the most important estuary between San Francisco and Humboldt Bay for wintering waterfowl,” it says. In particular, Hog Island is home to a double-breasted cormorant colony and harbor seal rookery, and the bay also provides habitat for osprey, bald eagles and sea lions.
The working group, which spent over 60 hours studying potential new zones, made site visits, listened to presentations on the available science on the impacts of aircraft on wildlife, discussed impacts on pilots and solicited comments from stakeholder groups like Audubon Canyon Ranch and a seaplane tour company.
There are many studies on aircrafts’ impacts on birds, though not as many on cetaceans and pinnipeds. A study published in 2007 by United States Fish and Wildlife scientists studied disturbances by aircraft and boats on common murres in three areas, including Devil’s Slide and Point Reyes. It concluded that most disturbances by aircraft occurred below 1,000 feet and that helicopters are more disturbing than fixed-wing planes.
That does not mean disturbances are numerous, however. For instance, a report on 2015 monitoring at those sites said there were only two documented disturbances by aircraft of common murre colonies at Point Reyes and Drakes Bay.
Audubon Canyon Ranch, which has a nature reserve in Marshall, does not have official numbers on flight disturbances on Tomales Bay, but the group’s director of conservation science, John Kelly, said they have been observed.
“I have observed occasional disturbances to waterbirds by low-flying aircraft, continually since the late 1980s,” he wrote in a letter sent to the council this week. “Low-flying aircraft typically track the linear shape of Tomales Bay, resulting in long, wide bands of disturbance. Some of these flights are very low to the water, apparently seeking to stimulate the disturbance behaviors of waterbirds, which can take flight in spectacular fly-ups.”
Mr. Kelly noted that different birds use different parts of Tomales Bay for habitat: the lesser scaup, scoters, dabbling ducks and others frequent Millerton Point, whereas thousands of the greater scaup use Tomasini Point, and red-throated loons hang out from Hog Island to Cypress Point, to name just a few species. Over 35,000 winter and waterbirds visit Tomales Bay annually, he said.
Those in the aviation community also raised issues in comment letters sent this summer, when the working group solicited stakeholder input. Rune Duke, of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, wrote of Tomales Bay, “There are vague statements made that helicopters and seaplanes ‘occasionally’ operate in the area without discussion of how this is disruptive and what problem needs to be corrected,” Mr. Duke wrote. Like the pilots on the working group, he asserted that the F.A.A. is the only entity that can regulate airspace.
Aaron Singer, who runs the Mill Valley-based San Francisco Seaplane Tours, opposes a zone over the entire bay. He said it was “reasonable to consider limited, particular sensitive areas as long as they do not restrict a seaplane pilot’s ability to operate safely in the areas where seaplanes have traditionally operated before. Under no circumstances should there be a blanket restriction placed over Tomales Bay by restricting access to landing seaplanes.”
In their own letter, the pilots on the working group worried about confusion caused by any new regulations. “We strongly believe that these NOAA zones can burden aviators to the point of confusion in specific weather or emergency situations,” they wrote.
Ultimately, the working group recommended creating new overflight zones in every area it studied except two: Tomales Bay and Devil’s Slide Rock, in San Mateo.
At Devil’s Slide, which is near an airport, the working group recommended instead making pilots aware through F.A.A. charts that there is sensitive wildlife in the area and to include on those charts a suggested 1,000 foot altitude in that area.
Tomales Bay was more contested, with the working group so divided that it did not make a recommendation at all. Instead, it offered two proposals—one from the pilots and one from the other working group members. The pilots recommended no new regulations at Tomales Bay, but instead a marker on F.A.A. charts that the area has sensitive wildlife. The other members recommended a new overflight regulation zone for all of Tomales Bay. But they did suggest that the sanctuary consider whether seaplanes or amphibious aircraft should be excluded from the rule, perhaps seasonally, unless they are not planning to land, a suggestion that came from a seaplane operator.
The working group made a number of recommendations for all zones, as well as for specific expanded zones. For instance, zones established in the past have typically extended 1.5 miles out to sea. But the group recommended that new zones extend only 1,000 feet horizontally, or less than one-fifth of a mile. It also suggested that previously established overflight zones be shrunk to 1,000 feet wide. The logic behind such a reduction is that wide zones could imperil flights and “generate negative reactions by pilots, undermining the credibility of the zones.”
The group also suggested that the sanctuary grant long-term permits to some qualified operators to fly below the 1,000-foot vertical threshold for “special purposes, including education, tourism and photography.” Drones, which fall under overflight zone regulations, raised their own specific concerns with the working group. Although the group was not charged with investigating drones specifically, it worries about how those particular crafts impact wildlife.
“While drones provide an excellent way for the public to view and photograph sanctuary sources, the sanctuaries need to give special attention to the disturbances to wildlife they can cause,” the group wrote.
The group suggested the sanctuary “gather information and research [drones] and their present and projected impacts on sanctuary resources,” conduct “aggressive” outreach and education and even potentially establish new regulations for drones outside the overflight areas.