SYNOPSIS. There are two separate issues involved with the proposed heliport and a low-flying helicopter in the Alsea Bay area:
1) LOW FLYING HELICOPTER. There have been complaints about Ray Hunt's helicopter and an unidentified helicopter flying too low in the Alsea Bay area. It appears that a low flying helicopter does not violate Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rules unless there is a clear danger to human safety. But if a helicopter disturbs wildlife, it violates Oregon law and if it disturbs marine mammals, it violates federal law. However, a low flying helicopter seems unneighborly, even if it may not be illegal.
2) HELIPORT. The heliport proposed for 4616 South Beaver Creek Road by Ray Hunt was not approved by the Lincoln County Planning Commission.
These two issues are interconnected because a helicopter can fly low after taking off from a heliport. But they may better be examined separately because the processes for dealing with each issue are different. Further, a helicopter can use the Newport Aiport for landings and take-offs and still fly low over areas, so dealing with a heliport issue does not resolve the low-flying helicopter issue.
Contacts about Low Flying Helicopters
Introduction to Disturbance by Low-Flying Helicopters in the Seal Rocks and Alsea Bay Area
FAA Rules About Low Flying Helicopters
FAA Advisories about Pilot Noise Abatement, Flight Rules Near Sensitive Areas, and Minimum Altitudes over National Wildlife Refuges
Wildlife Laws Applicable to Low Flying Aircraft
Fly Neighborly Program by Helicopter Association International (HAI)
Revise the Lincoln County Noise Ordinance?
Heliport at South Beaver Creek Issues.
To report low-flying aircraft in Lincoln County, be sure to record the identification number of the aircraft and other relevant information and try to take photos or video (see FAA Rules About Low Flying Helicopters) and contact:
To report helicopter disturbance of wildlife in the Alsea Bay area, be sure to record the identification number of the aircraft and other relevant information and try to take photos or video (see FAA Rules About Low Flying Helicopters) and contact:
To contact neighbors in the north Alsea Bay area concerned about low-flying helicopters: Duncan Campbell, 4747 South Beaver Creek Road, Waldport, OR 97394; 563-3511, DLC@actionnet.net.
Resources for Becoming a Participating Citizen in This Issue
To contact the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners because the Lincoln County Noise Ordinance does not appear to include noise made by low-flying helicopters:
Jean Cowan (JCowan@co.lincoln.or.us),
Terry Thompson (TThompson@co.lincoln.or.us),
Don Lindly (DLindly@co.lincoln.or.us)
225 West Olive Street, Room 110
Newport, OR 97365; (541) 265-4100; (541) 265-4176 (fax)
To contact local newspapers for Letters to the Editor or to report news information about low flying helicopters:
Newport News-Times, PO Box 965, Newport, Oregon 97365;
541-265-8571; 541-265-3862
South Lincoln County News, P.O. Box 1419, Waldport, OR 97394; 541-563-6397; FAX 541-563-6597;
slcn@pioneer.net
There have been several cases of a low flying helicopter in 2003 in the Seal Rocks and Alsea Bay Area. However, the helicopter number has not always been recorded, which is essential to identify the helicopter. Instances that I know include:
A low-flying helicopter is disturbing because of its noise. The following sections are relevant to low-flying helicopters as well as to heliports:
For more information, also search Google http://www.google.com/ or other Internet search engines for "Helicopter Noise," "Helicopter Disturbance," or similar keywords.
SUMMARY. Helicopters often appear to be exempt from FAA minimum altitudes, and it can be difficult to "prove" that an aircraft is flying too low or the pilot may claim to have done so for safety concerns. Nevertheless, the FAA should be contacted anyway about a low-flying airplane or helicopter because if they are not, then the offending pilot can say that since no one complained, then no one was disturbed. Complaints to the FAA about a particular pilot or aircraft are logged, even if there is not enough evidence to prosecute.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) office in Oregon to contact about low flying aircraft is:
Larry Bird
Portland Flight Standards District Office
Federal Aviation Administration
1800 NE 25th Ave. Suite 15
Hillsboro, OR 97124; 503-681-5500; 800-847-3806; Fax: 503-681-5555
Houston FAA Flight Standards: Low Flying Aircraft Complaints. Although this site is for Houston, it also applies nation-wide. Here is the type of information the FAA needs for them to deal with a complaint about a low flying aircraft according to this web site:
Identification - Can you identify the aircraft? Was it military or civil? Was it a high-or low-wing aircraft? Did you record the registration number which appears on the fuselage? (On U.S. registered aircraft, that number will be preceded with a capital ''N.")
Time and place - Exactly when did the incident(s) occur? Where did this happen? What direction was the aircraft flying? What was the color?
Altitude - How high (low) was the aircraft flying? On what do you base your estimate? Was the aircraft level with or below the elevation of a prominent object such as a tower or building? Did you obtain photographs? Are there any witnesses who could confirm your estimate - do you have their names, addresses, telephone numbers?
Supporting Evidence: Witnesses, Police, Photographs. Do you know of any other witnesses? The more the better. Do you have their names, addresses? They may be contacted. Are local police aware of the problem? While they have limited authority in aviation matters, police officers are considered ''trained observers" by the courts and their written statements or reports make excellent evidence should our enforcement action go to trial. If you took photographs, we need to know the lens used, and the height of any identifiable landmarks that appear.
The Houston Flight Standards web site also includes the following federal regulations, which makes it clear that helicopters are often exempt federally from a minimum altitude:
Title ·14, ·Code of Federal Regulations, Section 91.119 of the General Operating and Flight Rules which specifically prohibits low-flying aircraft.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes;
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In that case, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed In paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.
*** Helicopter operations may be conducted below the minimum altitudes set for fixed-wing aircraft. The reason? The helicopter's unique operating characteristics, the most important of which is its ability to execute pinpoint emergency landings during power failure. Further, the helicopter's increased use by law enforcement and emergency medical service agencies requires added flexibility in the application of many FAA provisions.
I thank Brent Campbell for finding and sharing most of the links in this section.
FAA Advisory Circular 91-66: Noise Abatement for Helicopters. Search for 91-66 at http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet. (This Advisory Circular notes that the FAA "continually receives complaints concerning low flying aircraft over noise-sensitive areas. These complaints have prompted requests for regulatory action which would prohibit low altitude flight over certain identified noise-sensitive locations." The purpose of this Circular is to present guidelines for the voluntary reduction of helicopter noise. In section 4a, the FAA writes:
The pilot can make the public less hostile to the helicopter's day-to-day operation by being aware of noise-sensitive routes and areas and by flying the helicopter in such a way that the sound of the aircraft causes the least possible annoyance to the public."
FAA Advisory Circular 91-36C: Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Flight Near Noise-Sensitive Areas. See http://www.netvista.net/~hpb/ac-91-36.html or search for 91-36c at http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet. This circular also acknowledges that the FAA receives complaints about low-flying aircraft. In Section 4 ("Voluntary Practices"), the FAA writes:
a. Avoidance of noise-sensitive areas, if practical, is preferable to overflight at relatively low altitudes.
b. Pilots operating fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft under VFR over noise-sensitive areas should make every effort to fly not less than 2,000 feet above the surface, weather permitting, even though flight at a lower level may be consistent with the provisions of Federal Aviation Regulations 91.79, Minimum Safe Altitudes.
Typical of noise-sensitive areas are: outdoor assemblies of persons, churches, hospitals, schools, nursing homes, residential areas designated as noise-sensitive by airports or by an airport noise compatibility plan or program, and National Park Areas (including Parks, Foreset, Primitive Areas, Wilderness Areas, Recreational Areas, National Seashores, National Monuments, National Lakeshores, and National Wildlife Refuge and Range Areas).
FAA Aeronautical Chart with Recommendation for Aircraft Minimum Altitudes over National Wildlife Refuges. The following link indicates that FAA Aeronautical Charts for the Oregon Coast show that there is a minimum recommended altitude of 2,000 ft for aircraft pilots flying over Oregon Coastal National Wildlife Refuges, which includes the islands at Seal Rocks. Please be patient with this link to see the information. Select "Online Maps" at MAPTECH; enter "97365" (Newport) for Zipcode and click "Go"; select "Aeronautical Chart" (which is by NOAA FAA); see "Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge" above and to the left of Seal Rocks as well as part of a "Notice to Pilots" in a box to the left of Gleneden Beach. Click the red triangle to go one screen left:
Notice to Pilots
The Islands, Rocks, and Reefs along the Pacific Coast from 42 00' N to 46 00' N are National Wildlife Refuges. Low flights may disturb wildlife resulting in a violation of federal law.
Further adjusting the screen to the left and adjusting the zoom reveals the following:
Regulations Regarding Flights over Charted National Park Service Areas, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Areas, and U. S. Forest Service Areas
These include:
All aircraft are requested to maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000 ft above the surface of the following: National Parks, Monuments, Seashores, Lakeshores, Recreation Areas and Scenic Riverways administered by the National Park Service; National Wildlife Refuges, Big Game Refuges, Game Ranges, and Wildlife Ranges administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Wilderness and Primitive areas administered by the U.S. Forest Service. FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 91-36C, Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Flight Near Noise-Sensitive Areas" defines the surface as the highest terrain within 2,000 ft laterally of the route of the flight, or the uppermost rim of a canyon or valley.
FAA Environmental Network: Noise. This includes links chosen by the FAA to issues about aircraft noise.
Search for "chasing" at Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 498 (2001 Edition) to find ORS 498.006, which applies to everyone, including aircraft pilots. ORS 498.006 states:
"Chasing or harassing wildlife prohibited. Except as the State Fish and Wildlife Commission by rule may provide otherwise, no person shall chase, harass, molest, worry or disturb any wildlife except while engaged in lawfully angling for, hunting or trapping such wildlife. [1973 c.723 §74]"
Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the National Marine Fisheries Service has responsibility for enforcing laws about disturbing/harassing marine mammals. The local NMFS Enforcement Agent, until his retirement, is Joe Koczur.
Helicopter noise is a concern not only in Lincoln County but elsewhere. One possible solution is the Fly Neighborly Program by Helicopter Association International (HAI)(whose membership includes includes helicopter operators and owners, users, manufacturers, and suppliers). This program is also described at the HAI web site http://www.rotor.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=1.
The Fly Neighborly Program is a voluntary noise reduction program designed to be implemented worldwide by helicopter pilots. It acknowledges that helicopter noise can be a problem, but that voluntary efforts by pilots to reduce noise is adequate. HAI also notes in their Acoustics/Environmental section that doubling the altitude of a helicopter reduces the noise that reaches the ground by more than half, and they have a HAI Fly Higher Chartthat gives a "recommended height" of 1,000 feet above ground level for small helicopters (which may include Hunt's helicopter) to reduce noise levels on the ground.
On 7 September 2003, I checked the online membership for HAI, and Ray Hunt was not listed as a member. Perhaps he is not be aware of the Fly Neighborly Program.
The Fly Neighborly Program has been adopted by various airports to try to reduce noise complaints. For example, see Santa Monica Airport's Fly Neighborly Program, which includes Santa Monica Airport's Helicopter Procedures.
For more about information, search for Fly Neighborly in Google (http://www.google.com) or other search engines. Please note that there still have been noise problems even when the Fly Neighborly Program has been adopted, but it is better than when pilots do not fly neighborly.
The spirit of flying neighborly is also embodied in Portland (Oregon) 333.243.020(D) in Chapter 243: Helicopter Landing Facilities of Portland (Oregon) Zoning Code, Title 33: Planning and Zoning Code. The following is one of the objectives used to guide the decision-making process in the siting of helicopter landing facilities" (HLF):
(D) Encourage the operators of proposed and exisiting HLFs to coordinate activities and to operate in a manner sensitive to the land uses in flight paths and in nearby areas...
The Lincoln County Noise Ordinance has provisions for regulating noise at heliports, but it has no regulations for noise of low-flying aircraft. Accordingly, if Lincoln County residents want a Noise Ordinance that includes noise produced by airplanes or helicopters, they will have to go to the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners to have airplanes and helicopters included in LCC 2.2005(5) of the Noise Ordinance as a "sound producing device." Such an addition would need to be worded to not include governmental or bona fide emergency aircraft.
Examples of noise ordinances elsewhere: Noise Regulations and Ordinances of Large U.S. Cities by Noise Pollution Clearinghouse. (Gives links for each state.)
Contacts for the Heliport near South Beaver Creek Road Issue
Heliport or Proposed Heliport?
Location of Proposed Heliport near South Beaver Creek Road
Questions about Compatibility of Proposed Heliport with Surrounding Area
Pre-Existing Potential Topographic or Structural Hazards Near Proposed Heliport
Pre-Existing Potential Bird Strike Hazards Near Proposed Heliport
The Newport Airport is Near the Proposed Heliport and Appears Safer
Updates (Including Newspaper Articles) about the Heliport Issue and Low Flying Helicopters
23 May 2003 Letter by the Lincoln County Planning and Development Department about One Proposed Heliport
A Lincoln County Conditional Use Permit Appears to be Required Even if a Heliport Is Used "Occasionally" or "Infrequently"
State Approval for the Heliport Appears to be Required
Measuring Helicopter Noise, State Noise Regulations for Airports, and the Lincoln County Noise Ordinance
Concerns About Effects of Helicopter Noise on People
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's Concerns about the Heliport at South Beaver Creek Road
Concerns about Disturbance of Livestock, Pets, and Wildlife by Helicopters
Concerns about Lowered Property Values for Landowners Near the Proposed Heliport at South Beaver Creek Road
Concerns about Loss of Property Control by Landowners Near the Proposed Heliport at South Beaver Creek Road
To contact neighbors concerned about this heliport near South Beaver Creek Road: Duncan Campbell, 4747 South Beaver Creek Road, Waldport, OR 97394; 563-3511, DLC@actionnet.net.
Resources for Becoming a Participating Citizen in This Issue
Jay Sennewald said on 29 August 2003, that a Public Hearing by the Lincoln County Planning Commission about the proposed heliport in South Beaver Creek is tentatively scheduled for October 27. This will be an opportunity to express opinions about the proposed heliport.
For information about the Lincoln County heliport application process or about the Lincoln County Public Hearing, contact:
Jay Sennewald at (541) 265-4192; Fax (541) 265-6945; or JSennewald@co.lincoln.or.us
Associate Planner
Lincoln County Department of Planning and Development
210 S. W. 2nd St.
Newport, OR 97365
According to Lincoln County Code 1.1630(19a), Lincoln County must have "provisional approval" for the heliport from the Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA) before Lincoln County can approve a heliport. The Oregon Department of Aviation may register the South Beaver Creek heliport and fuel facility or determine that its use is "occasional" and does not require State approval; see State Approval for the South Beaver Creek Heliport Appears to be Required. Consequently, it may be important to send comments about the proposed heliport before the ODA gives "provisional approval" to Lincoln County:
Gary Viehdorfer at 800-874-0102 ext 230 or Gary.W.Viehdorfer@state.or.us
Oregon Department of Aviation
3040 25th St. SE
Salem, OR 97302-1125
To contact local newspapers for "Letters to the Editor" or to report news information about the heliport:
Newport News-Times, PO Box 965, Newport, Oregon 97365;
541-265-8571; 541-265-3862
South Lincoln County News, P.O. Box 1419, Waldport, OR 97394; 541-563-6397; FAX 541-563-6597;
slcn@pioneer.net
A Random House Webster's College Dictionary definition of "heliport" is "a takeoff and landing place for helicopters." The same dictionary defines "helipad" as "heliport."
Hunt first landed a helicopter on his property on June 21, and it was photographed. Hunt received approval for a recreational vehicle (RV) concrete pad in July and landed his helicopter on the RV pad on August 17, when it had a windsock. He also landed elsewhere on his property later on August 17. In his application to Lincoln County, Hunt applied for a 1,000 gallon fuel tank, and, by August 1, he was reported to have a fuel storage tank for his helicopter on his property. In August, Hunt also conducted "a few" landings and takeoffs on his property in connection with tests for his County heliport application. On August 21, Hunt's attorney was advised by the Lincoln County Counsel to not use his property as a heliport until he receives a Lincoln County conditional permit, so perhaps his property will not be used as a heliport again for a while.
Using the dictionary definition of heliport, Ray Hunt's property at 4616 South Beaver Creek Road is a heliport. However, others may define heliport differently.
Lincoln County has not approved Hunt's heliport, and, to my knowledge, neither has the Oregon Department of Aviation. Hunt has applied for a Lincoln County conditional use permit, and a public hearing is tentatively scheduled for October 27.
Accordingly, although Hunt's property has been used as a heliport, it will not be an "approved heliport" until it receives the appropriate permits. Until that time, it is thus also a "proposed heliport," and I use both "heliport" and "proposed heliport" to refer to this heliport in this web page.
The heliport is not located on a large property far away from neighbors. It is on Ray Hunt's 5 acre property, and surrounding properties have been reported to include parcels of 40 acres, 10 acres, 6 acres, and smaller acreages in the Kozy Acres subdivision. The area is zoned Agriculture Conservation.
Although the address for the heliport is 4616 South Beaver Creek Road, the site is in the Alsea Bay drainage system (see Figure 1). The heliport is within about 0.5 mi south of the South Beaver Creek drainage (see Figure 1), so a helicopter flying to and from the heliport could fly over the Beaver Creek Valley and also be of concern to residents there.
The heliport is on a hill in a clearing with nearby trees (see Figure 2 and 21 June 2003 photograph).
FIGURE 1. Topographical map of area near 4616 South Beaver Creek Road from TerraServer USA (http://terraserver-usa.com). This is based on the 1984 U.S. Geological Survey Waldport Quadrangle and was downloaded from http://terraserver-usa.com/image.aspx?t=2&s=12&x=522&y=6153&z=10&w=2. Each contour line is 40 feet in elevation.
There have been the following additions to this map:
Brent Campbell estimated that the distance between the heliport (RV pad) and Alsea Bay was about 3,100 ft from an aerial photograph; this is also the same distance that I estimate from this map and a paper copy of the Waldport quadrangle map.
Based on Brent Campbell's location of the heliport (RV pad), I estimate that the distance from the heliport to the nearest blue line for the U.S. Geological Survey's "Marsh or Swamp" is about 250-300 ft on this map and a paper copy of the Waldport quadrangle map.
Based on Brent Campbell's location of the heliport (RV pad), I estimate that the distance between the heliport and Bayview Pasture is roughly 4,200-4,500 ft.
Duncan Campbell estimated that the distance between his 4747 mailbox and the heliport (RV) pad is about 750 ft.
In Laura Brophy's 29 September 2003 email to Cyndi Karp (who forwarded the message to me) and Jay Sennewald in the Lincoln County Planning and Development Department, Brophy wrote that the Bayview Oxbow was site A25 in her 1999 report (Brophy, L. S. 1999. Yaquina and Alsea River basins estuarine wetland site prioritization project: final report. Produced for the MidCoast Watersheds Council (currently at 157 NW 15th Street, Newport, OR 97365) by Green Point Consulting (2625 NW Mulkey Avenue, Corvallis, OR 97330). This is available at http://www.psmfc.org/habitat/YAestreport-full.pdf and is GB991.O7 B71 at Oregon State University Libraries.) In her email, Brophy wrote about the Bayview Oxbow:
"This wetland has been documented as having very high biological value, and is a very high priority for restoration and protection. ... the Bayview Oxbow wetland was once fully tidal wetland, but was cut off from tidal flow by the construction of Bayview Road and by tidegates on the culverts under the road. The site is currently returning to its former tidal status, since one of the tidegates (on the west side of the oxbow) is now gone, and that culvert is carrying tidal flow into the oxbow wetland. (Tidal flow is muted by the small size of the culvert, and I can not determine how far onto the site the tidal influence currently extends.) The other tidegate (on the east end of the oxbow) is actively maintained, so there is very little tidal flow onto the east part of the oxbow."
FIGURE 2. View of house and clearing at 4616 South Beaver Creek Road for the proposed heliport. This is Duncan Campbell's 31 May 2003 photograph from his property east of South Beaver Creek Road towards the property with the proposed heliport. Campbell said that the Lincoln County Planning and Development Department showed him a plot plan that the heliport was proposed to be slightly south and just east of the house at 4616 South Beaver Creek Road, so the proposed heliport is between the house and South Beaver Creek Road.
Note:
1) Potential Hazard 1. Trees surrounding the clearing.
2) Potential Hazard 2. The heliport is near a hillside.
3) The proximity of neighbors on the right side of the photo.
A major concern is that the proposed heliport is not compatible with the surrounding area. Hunt's property for his heliport is only 5 acres, and surrounding properties are reported to include parcels of 40 acres, 10 acres, 6 acres, and smaller acreages in the Kozy Acres subdivision.
A clear indication of the incompatibility of this heliport is the approximately 50 letters written to the Lincoln County Planning and Development Department in opposition to the proposed heliport by mid-June.
Concerns include:
Another sign of incompatibility is opposition by the local fire district. Hunt's heliport is within the Seal Rock Rural Fire Department District. The District's fire chief, Mark Jung, was reported to have written the Lincoln County Planning and Development Department in opposition of the heliport and fuel storage and was reported to have stated that their Fire Department "does not have the capability or proper fire fighting apparatus to deal with any aviation crash or high grade Jet-A fuel fire or spill." Jung noted that the cost to obtain the equipment and training for such a crash or fire "would require an unfair heavy tax increase to the residents of the district."
Incompatibility is also shown by a letter of opposition by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to the proposed heliport.
A helicopter taking off or landing from the proposed heliport may crash because of several possible nearby hazards. Safety is an issue not only to people in a helicopter but also to residents or visitors to this area because the helicopter may crash into them or start a fire that may threaten their property. In my opinion, the Newport Airport seems to be a safer place for a helicopter to use as a heliport.
Oregon Revised Statute 836.095(1) at ORS 836 indicates that the Oregon Department of Aviation determines if a site is adequate for a proposed airport, including if it meets "minimum standards for safety" and that the Oregon Department of Aviation "shall" evaluate aspects of the site including:
ORS 836.095(1b). The location of the airport in relation to any surrounding topography, trees or structures that could affect the safety of the airport.
Possible topographic or structural hazards to a helicopter using the proposed heliport include:
In my opinion, the combination of these potential hazards coupled with stormy, windy, and foggy weather conditions common to this area results in a concern about the safety of a helicopter using the proposed heliport.
A major issue at airports is the risk of collisions with birds because such collisions have caused aircraft to crash. Collisions with birds can be a problem during landings and takeoffs, so the proximity of waterfowl near the proposed heliport is a concern. In their FY 2002 report, Wildlife Services (WS; U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) for Oregon (see http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/pdf/oregon.pdf), wrote:
"WS has assisted most of Oregon's major airports [boldface added] by: providing technical assistance, conducting wildlife hazard assessments, writing wildlife hazard management plans, providing wildlife removal services, and training airport staff on ways to minimize wildlife hazards to air travelers."
The Oregon Department of Aviation is supposed to determine if an airport site meets "minimum standards for safety," according to Oregon Revised Statute 836.095(1).
There is a concern that a helicopter using the proposed heliport has a risk of a bird strike.
The following is from a 27 June 2003 Newport News-Times newspaper article about possible helicopter collisions with Bald Eagles:
Doug Cottam, district wildlife biologist for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife at South Beach, also responded to the planning department. He wrote that ODFW prefers aircraft to use existing airports to minimize conflicts between aircraft and wildlife. And he noted that the Newport airport has a fence to prevent accidents between animals and aircraft, and flights at that airport are not in conflict with wildlife. Cottam noted that two bald eagle nest sites are near the proposed helipad, one within 1 mile of the proposal, with both nesting pairs successfully fledging two chicks last year. The bald eagles are present year round, he added. "Low level landings and approaches and flights near or around these nests will likely cause disturbance and risk collisions with flying birds," Cottam wrote.
Grubb and Bowerman (1997:216) found that aircraft (including helicopters) caused nesting Bald Eagles to fly at a median distance of 200 m (656 ft). They (1997:221) recommended that aircraft be excluded from within 600 m (1,969 ft) of nests. But even when helicopters were 625 m (2,051 ft) or more away, eagles had a low level response during 22% of helicopter flights (Grubb and Bowerman 1997:219). found that helicopters often caused nesting Bald Eagles to fly when within 200 m (656 ft) of nests and recommended that aircraft be excluded from within 600 m (1,969 ft or 0.4 mile) of nests. Even when helicopters were 600 m or more away, eagles had a low level response in 19% of flights.
Also in 27 June 2003 Newport News-Times newspaper article, Cottam noted "that hundreds and sometimes thousands of waterfowl inhabit Alsea Bay and both the north and south forks of Beaver Creek fall through winter ... Low level helicopter flights will disturb them, he said. And he noted that the Alsea Bay Estuary Plan, which involves the majority of north Alsea Bay, is a Natural Estuarine Unit, the most restrictive of the zoning units."
As Cottam observes, there are many waterfowl, including Canada Geese, present near the proposed heliport (e.g., see Figure 3 and Table 1). In a field near the proposed heliport, Kathy Merrifield counted 27 geese (12 Canada Geese plus 15 Greater White-fronted Geese) on 18 April 1999 and 84 Canada Geese on 5 December 1999. At Bayview Pasture, which is southeast of the proposed heliport (see Figure 1), many geese and ducks have also been regularly found (Table 2). Many waterfowl (Table 1) are also present at nearby Beaver Creek just over the hill to the north and at Alsea Bay (see Figure 1). Many gulls and shorebirds also often use Alsea Bay, which has been designated as an Oregon Important Bird Area (http://www.oregoniba.org/alseabay.htm) for significant numbers of Brown Pelicans, terns, shorebirds, and waterfowl.
Canada Geese are particularly sensitive to helicopters and often fly up, which increases the risk of their collision with a helicopter. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration (1985:Section 9.2.1) wrote about waterfowl tested for their response to helicopters at Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in Texas:
"... the response of ring-necked ducks, coots, gadwalls, purple gallinules, and pintail ducks were found to increase more strongly as a function of the helicopter noise level. Canadian and Snow Geese did not tolerate helicopter noise at any level. The authors concluded that because any tendency among the geese to adapt remains to be demonstrated, "off-limits" areas may possibly be necessary for such sensitive species."
Of these waterfowl, Canada Geese, Ring-necked Ducks, American Coots, Gadwalls, and Northern Pintail may seasonally occur in the Alsea Bay/Beaver Creek area.
Further, Canada Geese also often responded or flew in response to helicopters in Alaska (Table 3). The response rate decreased when the helicopter was further away or higher; however, even when helicopters were about a mile away and flying at 1,000 feet, 5% of Canada Geese still flew up (Table 3). But 5% of just 100 Canada Geese (and many more are sometimes present in the area of the proposed heliport, see Table 1 and Table 2) is still 5 Canada Geese, and it only takes one to cause a bird strike.
FIGURE 3. Two possible hazards for a helicopter using the proposed heliport at 4616 South Beaver Creek Road. This is an October 2001 photograph by Duncan Campbell of over 75 Canada Geese in his driveway at 4747 South Beaver Creek Road. The Campbell driveway is just south of the proposed heliport and is on the east side of South Beaver Creek Road (see Figure 1).
Potential Hazard 1. Powerlines along South Beaver Creek Road; the third powerline is just visible in the top right center of the photograph.
Potential Hazard 2. Many Canada Geese are present in the area. They often fly and could collide with a helicopter.
TABLE 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service aerial censuses of waterfowl at Alsea Bay and Beaver Creek. These censuses were by Roy Lowe and/or Dave Pitkin (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Coast National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 2127 SE OSU Drive, Newport, OR 97365). Alsea Bay is shown in the bottom left and the south end of the Beaver Creek drainage is shown in the top center of Figure 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Census Beaver Creek______________ Alsea Bay_________________ Period Swans Geese Ducks Total Swans Geese Ducks Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1/16-17/1994 0 0 877 877 0 193 2,328 2,521 3/6/1994 0 0 771 771 0 103 892 995 12/5/1994 0 45 1,376 1,421 0 20 486 506 12/28-29/1994 0 0 501 501 0 26 985 1,011 1/10/1996 0 0 722 722 1 103 476 580 1/13, 15/1997 0 0 1,065 1,065 0 177 1,751 1,928 1/7-8/1998 0 0 510 510 0 40 395 435 1/8-9/1999 0 20 968 988 0 332 904 1,236 1/5-6/2000 0 0 448 448 0 377 628 1,005 1/2-3/2001 0 0 190 190 0 214 4,536 4,750 1/3/2002 0 0 124 124 0 150 683 833 1/10/2003 0 0 126 126 0 175 504 679 ----------------------------------------------------------------------TABLE 2. Numbers of geese or ducks reported at Bayview Pasture during 1997-May 2003. Bayview Pasture is shown in the bottom center of Figure 1. Note that this area is partially obscured by the terrain and vegetation and the area is not defined by sharp boundaries, so it is not possible to accurately census this area. However, these counts give an idea of the minimum number of birds present. Note that most geese were Canada Geese, though some Greater White-fronted Geese were also sometimes present. All ducks were dabbling ducks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bayview Pasture:
Number of____
Date Geese Ducks Observer(s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/12/1997 256 400+ Kathy Merrifield
1/19/1997 90 470 Kathy Merrifield
2/2/1997 110 391 Kathy Merrifield
2/9/1997 55 434 Kathy Merrifield
3/2/1997 56 512 Kathy Merrifield
3/9/1997 0 271 Kathy Merrifield
3/23/1997 112 20 Kathy Merrifield
4/6/1997 28 33 Kathy Merrifield
5/4/1997 16 2 Kathy Merrifield
11/22/1997 ? 500+ Yaquina Birders & Naturalists Field Trip
12/14/1997 0 915 Kathy Merrifield
12/28/1997 112 500 Kathy Merrifield
1/4/1998 160 880 Kathy Merrifield
1/19/1998 X 55 Kathy Merrifield
2/1/1998 42 144 Kathy Merrifield
3/29/1998 45 50 Kathy Merrifield
7/26/1998 40 0 Kathy Merrifield
11/1/1998 5 0 Kathy Merrifield
1/18/1999 X 0 Kathy Merrifield
2/7/1999 118 23 Kathy Merrifield
2/20/1999 5 ? Laimons Osis
3/7/1999 66 186 Kathy Merrifield
3/28/1999 3 43 Kathy Merrifield
4/18/1999 19 0 Kathy Merrifield
10/26/1999 9 ? Roy Lowe
12/5/1999 33 0 Kathy Merrifield
2/27/2000 34 0 Kathy Merrifield
4/5/2000 48 0 Kathy Merrifield
10/6/2000 48 ? Rebecca Cheek
12/26/2000 200 ? Jamie Simmons
5/5/2001 231 ? Jamie Simmons
1/21/2002 ? 122 Kathy Merrifield
12/24-27/2002 95 ? Jamie Simmons
4/6/2003 52* ? Kathy Merrifield
4/8/2003 54* ? Rebecca Cheek & Walt Nelson
4/10/2003 54* ? Laimons Osis
* All geese were Aleutian Canada Geese, a subspecies of concern.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------TABLE 3. Percentage of Canada Geese and Brant that responded or flew in response to helicopters at Izembek Lagoon, Alaska. Both species occur in Lincoln County (Oregon), with Canada Geese near the proposed heliport (e.g., see Figure 3) and Brant seasonally at Yaquina Bay. These data are from Ward and Stehn (1989: 82 and 106).
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Helicopter_________ Lateral Canada Goose____ Brant___________ Distance Altitude Response Flight Response Flight (miles) (feet) (%) (%) (%) (%) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0-0.2 500 57 24 92 84 0-0.2 1,000 31 4 90 74 0.3-0.7 1,000 24 7 72 47 0.8-1.2 1,000 7 5 38 15 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Newport Airport seems close to the proposed heliport. On May 30, I drove from the Newport Airport Terminal to the mailbox at 4616 South Beaver Creek Road. My odometer indicated that the distance was almost exactly 10 miles, and, driving conservatively, it took me 17 minutes (an average of 35 miles per hour). I suspect that drivers familiar with the road could drive it safely in 15 minutes (an average of 40 miles per hour) or less.
The Newport Airport has extensive lights, navigational aides, and much bigger runways that allow a wider margin of error than seems possible for the proposed heliport. In a June 27 News-Times newspaper article, Doug Cottam, district wildlife biologist for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, was reported to have written that the Newport airport has a fence to prevent accidents between animals and aircraft, and flights at that airport are not in conflict with wildlife. The U.S. Coast Guard has a helicopter based at the Newport Airport, so the Newport Airport is good for helicopters. Hunt has also rented a hangar for his helicopter at the Newport Airport.
4 June 2003. Proposed Rural Heliport Upsets Neighbors by Leslie O'Donnell of the News-Times in P. A2 of the 4 June 2003 Newport News-Times.
BRIEF SUMMARY. The proposed heliport would be on Ray Hunt's 5 acre parcel of property that is zoned Agriculture Conservation (AC) and would be within the Seal Rock Volunteer Fire Protection District. Surrounding properties include parcels of 40 acres, 10 acres, 6 acres, and smaller acreages in the Kozy Acres subdivision. The Lincoln County Planning Department sent letters requesting comments about the proposed heliport to nearby neighbors, the Seal Rock Volunteer Fire Protection District, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Aviation, and Federal Aviation Administration; see the Planning Department's letter. The 1,000 gallon fuel storage tank would require oversight from the State Fire Marshall and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
18 June 2003. Seal Rock Heliport Applicant Asks for Delay by Joel Gallob of the News-Times in P. A3 of the 18 June 2003 Newport News-Times.
BRIEF SUMMARY. The Planning Department received "about 50 letters on it from neighbors" with virtually all opposed to the proposed heliport. Because of the opposition, the heliport proposal will go to the Lincoln County Planning Commission, but the applicant, Ray Hunt, asked the Planning Department to delay processing his application.
21 June 2003 photograph. Duncan Campbell's color photograph of Hunt's helicopter that landed on the west side of Hunt's house on Saturday, 21 June 2003 at about 5:15 PM. One of Campbell's other photos is shown as a black and white print in the 27 June 2003 News-Times article.
27 June 2003. Proposed Heliport on South Beaver Creek Continues to Cause Controversy by Leslie O'Donnell of the News-Times in P. A9 of the 27 June 2003 Newport News-Times.
BRIEF SUMMARY. The article includes Duncan Campbell's photo of Ray Hunt's helicopter after it landed on Hunt's property on June 21 (also see a larger color photo).
In response to the Planning Department's letter requesting comments, Mark Jung, Seal Rock Rural Fire Department chief, recommended that the plan for the heliport and fuel storage be denied and stated that their Fire Department "does not have the capability or proper fire fighting apparatus to deal with any aviation crash or high grade Jet-A fuel fire or spill." Jung noted that the cost to obtain the equipment and training for such a crash or fire "would require an unfair heavy tax increase to the residents of the district."
Also in response to the Planning Department's request for comments about the proposed heliport on Hunt's property, Doug Cottam, district wildlife biologist for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife at South Beach, wrote that the ODFW prefers aircraft to use existing airports to minimize conflicts between aircraft and wildlife. And he noted that the Newport airport has a fence to prevent accidents between animals and aircraft, and flights at that airport are not in conflict with wildlife. He noted that two Bald Eagle nest sites are near the proposed heliport--one of the nests is within a mile. "Low level landings and approaches and flights near or around these nests will likely cause disturbance and risk collisions with flying birds," Cottam wrote. Cottam also wrote about his concern and experience with low level Bell Jet Ranger helicopters causing disturbance of elk, other wildlife, and livestock.
Lincoln County Planning Department Director Matt Spangler said that the county's land use code requires approval for a heliport but that there is an exception for "occasional, irregular or infrequent use." Spangler stated: "The question is how many times you can land and take off before it's a heliport." What Hunt applied for - up to five takeoffs and landings per week - is a heliport, he said.
25 July 2003. Helicopter Hopeful Builds Recreational Vehicle Pad by Joel Gallob of the News-Times in P. A7 of the 25 July 2003 Newport News-Times.
BRIEF SUMMARY. Ray Hunt applied to the Lincoln County Planning Department for a second delay in processing his request for a heliport and his request was granted.
Hunt also applied for a concrete pad for a recreational vehicle with an adjacent retaining wall, and the Planning Department approved the request. The News-Times reports: "If Hunt were to use the RV pad as a helipad, he would be in violation of the county code, as he needs a conditional use permit to be authorized to construct a take off and landing facility." [On 17 August 2003, Duncan Campbell witnessed a helicopter landing on the RV pad.]
1 August 2003. Helicopter Owner Defends Request for Landing Pad by Joel Gallob of the News-Times in p. A11 of the 1 August 2003 Newport News-Times.
BRIEF SUMMARY. Ray Hunt, the helicopter owner, stated that he does not need a permit for a heliport "under county ordinance and federal law, because of the small number of takeoffs and landings planned. "I can land sporadically, non-consistently, on a pad, and that's not a violation," he said.
(COMMENT. I have not found any support for Hunt's reported statement in the Lincoln County Code; further, the Lincoln County Counsel advised Hunt's attorney that Hunt should not make any more takeoffs or landings until he receives a Lincoln County Conditional Use Permit. According to Lincoln County Code 1.1630(19a), Lincoln County must also have "provisional approval" for the heliport from the Oregon Department of Aviation before Lincoln County can approve a heliport.)
Hunt said that the construction company that had applied for his heliport to the County errored, and he would be making fewer landings and takeoffs than were given in his application and would take off and land only "once or maybe twice a week."
The Lincoln County Planning Director Matt Spangler said: "The question is how many times you can land and take off before it's a heliport."
Concerns by the Seal Rock Fire Protection District and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife are repeated.
Hunt is reported discussing his helicopter fuel storage tank as if it is already on his property.
13 August 2003. Waldport Declines to Sell Property for Enhanced Veterans' Memorial by Joel Gallob of the News-Times in p. A7 of the 13 August 2003 Newport News-Times.
BRIEF SUMMARY. Ray Hunt is reported to be the new owner of the True Value Hardware store in Waldport and to have requested to buy a Waldport city park, but the City Council declined.
COMMENT. Although this article is not about Hunt's heliport or helicopter, the article shows that he sometimes disagrees with government agencies other than the Lincoln County Planning and Development Department.
17 August 2003 photograph. Duncan Campbell's photograph of Hunt's helicopter on Hunt's concrete RV pad. Hunt applied to the Lincoln County Planning and Development Department for permission to build the RV pad and permission was given for the RV pad, but not a helicopter pad. Campbell wrote: "Mr. Hunt landed his helicopter on the RV pad today, Sunday 8/17/03 at 11:25 am" and that there was a windsock at the RV pad. Campbell reported that Hunt took off at 5:40 PM and returned at 6:00 PM and again landed, but at a different spot on Hunt's property.
20 August 2003. Questions Raised Over Helicopter by Joel Gallob of the News-Times in p. A2 of the 20 August 2003 Newport News-Times.
BRIEF SUMMARY. Ray Hunt has not registered his helicopter with the Oregon Department of Aviation and said that he does not have to because Oregon is not the helicopter's chief location. (COMMENT. If Hunt is an Oregon resident, Hunt's reported statement is not supported by Oregon Revised Statute 837.040 at ORS 837, which requires every Oregon resident who owns an aircraft that is based or flown in Oregon to register with the Oregon Department of Aviation.)
A FAA spokesperson said that the FAA had received complaints about Hunt's helicopter and its noise, but that the FAA does not regulate noise.
The Newport Airport manager said that Hunt has been renting a hangar for his helicopter at the Newport Airport.
A neighbor, Duncan Campbell, reported that geese near his home took off is response to one of Hunt's recent helicopter flights.
One Waldport resident reported a helicopter flying low and scaring animals.
COMMENT. Although it was reported in the 25 July 2003 News-Times that it would be a violation if Hunt landed his helicopter on his RV pad, this is not mentioned in this article.
10 September 2003. Helicopter Owner Agrees Not to Fly Until County Decision on Permit by Joel Gallob of the News-Times in p. A2 of the 10 September 2003 Newport News-Times.
BRIEF SUMMARY. The Lincoln County Counsel Wayne Belmont wrote Hunt's attorney (Al Johnson of Portland) on August 21 and indicated that further use of Hunt's property for helicopter takeoffs and landings is not an allowed "use" until the County grants a conditional use permit. Hunt's attorney replied to Belmont on August 28 and said that Hunt will avoid landings on his property unless necessary for safety or emergency reasons pending the Lincoln County Planning Commission hearing scheduled on Oct. 27. Hunt conducted "a few" landings and liftoffs for tests related to his application for a County permit.
10 September 2003. Council Hears Complaint Over Helicopter by Joel Gallob of the News-Times in p. A2 of the 10 September 2003 Newport News-Times.
BRIEF SUMMARY. The Waldport City Council is asked to take a stand against Hunt's heliport and his low-flying helicopter.
Transcription of the 23 May 2003 letter by the Lincoln County Planning and Development Department about one proposed heliport at 4616 South Beaver Creek Road (see Figure 1); see an image of this letter. This letter requested comments from nearby landowners and other interested parties by 9 June 2003. This letter was supplied by Duncan Campbell (who lives at 4747 South Beaver Creek Road), who is a nearby landowner and who was told by the Planning and Development Department that only landowners within 750 feet of the proposed heliport were notified. Consequently, this proposal was not widely known, and the time for comment by nearby landowners or other interested parties was brief. However, a helicopter would affect more people than just neighbors within 750 ft of the heliport, so people living further away could also be affected. The Planning and Development Department also sent letters soliciting comments about the proposed heliport to the Seal Rock Volunteer Fire Protection District, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Aviation, and Federal Aviation Administration. Note that the request is for one (1) heliport at Ray Hunt's property that would include a helipad and storage. The transcription follows:
Lincoln County, Oregon Department of Planning and Development
210 S. W. 2nd St.
Newport, OR 97365
(541) 265-4192
Fax (541) 265-6945
May 23, 2003
Subject: Land Use Application for Heliport on South Beaver Creek Road
Dear Property Owner:
The Lincoln County Planning Department has received an application from Ray Hunt to develop a heliport on his property at 4616 South Beaver Creek Road. The proposal includes the construction of a helicopter pad and associated storage building for the property owner's personal use. The heliport would serve a Bell Jet Ranger helicopter [see photograph of it] for private use and would accommodate takeoffs and landings up to five times per week during daylight hours.
The staff of the planning department is seeking comments from surrounding area residents and other interested parties [boldface added] to gauge the compatibility of the proposed heliport with the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Director, prior to issuing a land use decision on the proposal, will consider all comments received prior to June 9, 2003. This is your opportunity to participate in the local land-use decision process and the development of your neighborhood.
If you have questions about the proposal or if you wish to submit comments, please contact Jay Sennewald, Associate Planner at (541) 265-4192. Comments should be submitted in writing and pertain generally to the compatability of the facility with the neighborhood. Comments can be mailed to the Lincoln County Planning Department office at 210 SW 2nd Street, Newport, OR 97365.
Sincerely,
[signature]
Jay Sennewald
Associate Planner
There has been some controversy about whether the South Beaver Creek heliport requires a Lincoln County Conditional Use Permit or not. Below, I give some of the statements that have been made, followed by the Lincoln County Code that indicates that a Conditional Use Permit is required.
In a June 27 Newport News-Times article, Matt Spangler, Lincoln County Planning and Development Department Director was reported to have indicated the following:
Spangler, contacted Thursday, said he has discussed the situation with the Federal Aviation Administration and the Oregon Department of Aviation. "The county's land use code requires approval for a heliport," he said. The code defines the facility as a place where someone takes off and lands a rotor craft. An exception in the code allows for "occasional, irregular or infrequent use," he said. "The question is how many times you can land and take off before it's a heliport," Spangler said. What Hunt applied for - up to five takeoffs and landings per week - is a heliport, he said.
Spangler's position was also repeated in Helicopter Owner Defends Request for Landing Pad by Joel Gallob of the News-Times in p. A11 of the 1 August 2003 Newport News-Times. The following is also from that article:
Hunt added that he does not need a permit under county ordinance and federal law, because of the small number of takeoffs and landings planned. "I can land sporadically, non-consistently, on a pad, and that's not a violation," he said. Hunt noted that no one seems able to define how many landings and takeoffs require the permit for a helicopter pad.
The following is from an August 20 Newport News-Times article:
Hunt's position is that his use of the helicopter is occasional and infrequent, and thus his planned landing pad does not require such a permit. According to county planner Jay Sennewald, the county rules on the matter are ambiguous, which is why the issue will involve interpretation by the planning commission.
The South Beaver Creek heliport is zoned Agricultural Conservation, and Lincoln County Code (LCC) 1.1373(3h) states that within this zone that one Conditional Use is "Personal use airports and heliports, including associated hangars and maintenance and service facilities."
In Lincoln County Code, the only Chapter in which I found "heliport" or "helipad" by a computer search was Chapter 1: Land Use Planning. In my computer search for "occasional" or "infrequent" in Chapter 1, I only found one mention of these words:
LCC 1.1630(24)(a) Personal use airports or helipads shall be restricted, except for aircraft emergencies, to use by the owner, by commercial aviation activities in conjunction with agriculture, and infrequent and occasional use by invited guests.
The Lincoln County Code refers specifically to "infrequent and occasional" use by invited guests, not the helipad owner. Accordingly, Lincoln County Code that I have found does not support the conclusion that a heliport does not need a Conditional Use Permit if it is used occasionally or infrequently. Lincoln County Code 1.1630(19b) indicates that a heliport must also meet noise standards by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Also see Lincoln County Codes about Heliports in an Agriculture Conservation Area.
During my visit with Jay Sennewald (Associate Planner with the Lincoln County Planning and Development Department) on 29 August 2003, I asked him what was the basis for his Department's conclusion that a heliport used occasionally or infrequently would not need a Lincoln County Conditional Use Permit. He said that Gary Viehdorfer of the Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA)(who is designated as ODA's contact for airport/heliport approval) had told the Lincoln County Planning and Development Department that a Conditional Use Permit would not be required if the heliport was only used "occasionally" or "infrequently."
In a September 10 Newport News-Times article, it is reported that Lincoln County Counsel Wayne Belmont wrote Hunt's attorney on August 21 and indicated that further use of Hunt's property for helicopter takeoffs and landings is not an allowed "use" until the Lincoln County grants a Conditional Use Permit. This action suggests that even if the proposed heliport is used occasionally that it will still need a Lincoln County permit.
According to Lincoln County Code 1.1630(19a), Lincoln County must have "provisional approval" for a heliport from the Oregon Department of Aviation before Lincoln County can approve a heliport. This requirement is similar to that for Portland (Oregon), where a copy of State "provisional" approval that includes details of approaches, nearby obstructions, and other details is required before Portland approves of a helicopter landing facility. See 333.243.050(C1) and 333.243.060(E) in Chapter 243: Helicopter Landing Facilities of Portland (Oregon) Zoning Code, Title 33: Planning and Zoning Code.
There is controversy as to whether Ray Hunt's heliport requires State approval if he uses it occasionally or infrequently. In the May 2003 letter by the Lincoln County Planning and Development Department about Hunt's application for a Lincoln County Conditional Use permit, the amount of use was stated to be "takeoffs and landings up to five times per week during daylight hours." In an August 1 Newport News-Times article, Hunt is reported to have stated that the construction company that had made the application for him had erred and that he would actually take off and land "once or maybe twice a week."
The meaning of "occasional" with respect to heliports appears to be defined by the Oregon Department of Aviation Director, not a pilot or aircraft owner. For example, search for "occasional" in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 738 Division 5 ("General Definitions"); "occasional" is defined in OAR 738-005-0010(91):
(91) "Occasional" means infrequent, irregular, or from time-to-time - as specifically determined by the Director of the Department. In making this determination, the Director shall consider compatibility with the existing uses of the surrounding area. [boldface added]
Further, "occasional" is also used in OAR 738-005-0010(96) at OAR 738-005-0010:
(96) "Operation of an Airport" refers to any person, municipality, or officer or employee thereof who offers for use, or permits use of an aircraft landing area under its control for landing or take-off of aircraft (other than on an occasional basis, as determined by the ODA Director [boldface added]). In addition, any person who uses such an area for aircraft landing or take-off, with or without permission of the owner, shall be deemed to be "operating" an airport within the meaning of ORS 836.120. Presence or storage of aircraft and associated structures shall not alone be construed as constituting operation of an airport.
The Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA) also has a web page, Where Can I Land in Oregon? On this web page, the ODA first discusses public and private airports and some places where it is illegal to land, and the last paragraph states:
The key to landing anywhere not designated as a public-use airport, is to obtain prior permission, whether it be from the responsible private owner or public agency. No further approval is needed as long as such use is on an occasional, infrequent basis (as determined by the Department of Aviation [boldface added]). Of course, the user assumes all risks and liabilities. If the use is more than occasional, an airport Site Approval from ODA is necessary.
If Hunt used his heliport occasionally as an agricultural airstrip only for agricultural and forest aerial application of chemicals, fertilizers, or other substances, the heliport would not need to be licensed or registered by the State according to OAR 738-005-0010(6) at OAR 738-005 and OAR 738-020-0030(3) at OAR 738-020. But it has not been reported that he plans to use his heliport this way.
If Hunt needs State approval for his heliport, one factor that the Oregon Department of Aviation is supposed to include in approving a new airport is if it is compatible with surrounding land uses, which may also involve the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. The concern about land uses is illustrated by the Oregon Department of Aviation's Airport Land Use Compatibility Guidebook.
If the Oregon Department of Aviation decides that a new heliport requires state approval, the Oregon Department of Aviation is supposed to follow Oregon laws and regulations, including OAR 738:Division 20 ("Minimum Standards for Airports") and Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 836: Airports and Landing Fields.
Some of the provisions of ORS 836 that I think may be most relevant are given below (I have added boldface to items that may be of particular interest):
ORS 836.080 Exemptions from ORS 836.085 to 836.120. (1) The provisions of ORS 836.085 to 836.120 do not apply to airports owned or operated by the United States.
(2) The Oregon Department of Aviation as authorized by the State Aviation Board may, from time to time, to the extent necessary, exempt any class of airports, pursuant to a reasonable classification or grouping, from any rule or regulation promulgated under ORS 836.085 to 836.120, or from any requirement of such a rule or regulation, if it finds that the application of such rule, regulation or requirement would be an undue burden on such class and is not required in the interest of public safety. [Formerly 492.160]
ORS 836.085 Approval of airport sites; fee. Except as provided in ORS 836.080, the Oregon Department of Aviation as authorized by the State Aviation Board shall provide for the approval of proposed airport sites and the issuance of certificates of such approval. The following apply to this section:
(1) A nonrefundable fee of $75, together with an amount not to exceed $300 established by the department for the cost of inspecting and approving an airport site for potential approval, shall accompany the application for site approval.
(2) The department shall determine approval of airport sites under this section based on the conditions under ORS 836.095. [Formerly 492.170; 1997 c.585 §1]
ORS 836.090 Application for site approval. Subject to the rules of procedure adopted by the State Aviation Board providing for such approvals, any municipality or person desiring or planning to construct or establish an airport must, prior to the construction or establishment of the proposed airport, submit to the Oregon Department of Aviation an application for approval of the site which shall include an outline plan and written description of the project, showing particularly the airport location in respect to surrounding topography that could affect the airport location. [Formerly 492.180]
ORS 836.095 Approval criteria and conditions. (1) The Oregon Department of Aviation shall with reasonable dispatch grant approval of a proposed airport site if it is satisfied that the site is adequate for the proposed airport, that such proposed airport, if constructed or established, will conform to minimum standards of safety and that safe air traffic patterns could be worked out for such proposed airport and for all existing airport and approved airport sites in its vicinity. In determining whether an airport site is adequate for a proposed airport, the department shall evaluate all of the following aspects of the site:
(a) All real property devoted to or to be used in connection with any aviation activity at the proposed airport.
(b) The location of the airport in relation to any surrounding topography, trees or structures that could affect the safety of the airport.
(c) The location and configuration of the proposed airport’s runways and operation areas in relation to those of existing and approved airports or airport sites in the vicinity that could affect the safety of aircraft operating from the proposed airport, or from other airports.
(2) An approval of a proposed airport site may be granted under this section subject to any reasonable conditions which the department may deem necessary to effectuate the purposes of ORS 836.085 to 836.120, and shall remain in effect, unless sooner revoked by the department, until a license for an airport located on the approved site has been issued pursuant to ORS 836.105. [Formerly 492.190]
[ORS 836.100 not copied)
ORS 836.105 Licensing of airports. Except as provided in ORS 836.080, the Oregon
Department of Aviation is authorized to provide for the licensing of airports
and the annual renewal of such licenses. The following apply to this section:
(1) The department may charge license fees not exceeding $30 for each original
license, and not exceeding $30 for each renewal thereof.
(2) Upon the adoption of a rule providing for such licensing, the department
shall with reasonable dispatch, upon receipt of an application for an original
license and the payment of the duly required fee therefor, issue an appropriate
license if it is satisfied that the airport conforms to minimum standards of
safety and that safe air traffic patterns can be worked out for such airport and
for all existing airports and approved airport sites in its vicinity.
(3) All licenses shall be renewable annually upon payment of the fees
prescribed.
(4) Licenses and renewals thereof may be issued subject to any reasonable
conditions that the department may deem necessary to effectuate the purposes of
ORS 836.085 to 836.120. [Formerly 492.210; 1997 c.585 2]
ORS 836.115 Public hearing regarding site or license; transcripts. In connection with the grant of approval of a proposed airport site or the issuance of an airport license under ORS 836.085 to 836.110, the Oregon Department of Aviation may, on its own motion or upon the request of an affected or interested person, hold a hearing open to the public on any issue. Hearing transcripts shall be provided to requesting parties, at cost. [Formerly 492.230]
ORS 836.120 Unlicensed airport operation prohibited. Except as provided in ORS 836.080, no person, municipality or officer or employee thereof, shall operate an airport without an appropriate license for such, as is duly required by rule or regulation issued pursuant to ORS 836.105. [Formerly 492.240]
However, Hunt may possibly need to register, but not license, his proposed heliport. For example, OAR 738-020-0030(2), which is in OAR 738-20 ("Minimum Standards for Airports") states:
"(2) Personal-use airports are exempt from licensing, but sponsors will be required to register such airports annually with the Department. There shall be no fee for registration, but the owner shall register the airport prior to February 1 of each year on a form furnished by the Department. New airports shall be registered within thirty days of completion of the airport in accordance with plans submitted for site approval and approved by the Department [boldface added]. These airports may be approved for use by aircraft whose published manufacturer's specifications state they can be operated from an airport of a size less than the state minimum standards."
Low-flying aircraft are noisier than those flying higher. The Helicopter Association International (HAI) has recommended the voluntary Fly Neighborly Program for helicopter pilots. One part of this program is the recommendation that pilots fly higher to reduce noise levels on the ground. For example, they have a HAI Fly Higher Chart that gives a "recommended height" of 1,000 feet above ground level for small helicopters (which may include Hunt's helicopter) to reduce noise levels on the ground.
However, the Federal Aviation Administration controls minimum altitudes, not local governments, who receive complaints about noisy aircraft from citizens. Accordingly, some local governments have tried to control noisy aircraft through local noise ordinances.
This section includes material relating to a helicopter taking off or landing on the proposed South Beaver Creek heliport as well as noise of a low-flying helicopter.
In the 20 August 2003 Newport News-Times, Ray Hunt is reported to have had a sound engineer do a noise study of his helicopter; he will be giving his report to the Lincoln County Planning and Development Department; the reported sound level was 51 decibels.
But it remains to be seen how the results of Hunt's sound tests were "averaged"; the method of averaging can diminish the apparent impact of aircraft noise (see Measurements of Aircraft Noise for links to measurements of sound). Lincoln County Code requires taking sound measurements within 25 feet of a "noise-sensitive unit," which could be off of Hunt's property and on the property of a neighbor, who is concerned about the noise.
When Hunt's helicopter flies over the Waldport City Limits, it is subject to the Waldport Noise Ordinance (if they have one), but his heliport is outside the Waldport City Limits, so his use of his heliport would be subject to State Noise Regulations and the Lincoln County Noise Ordinance.
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has responsibilities for regulating noise in Oregon. Their web page discusses noise and states the following:
In July 1991, DEQ terminated its Noise Control Program as a cost-saving measure. Although DEQ no longer investigates noise complaints, regulated sources of noise are legally responsible for complying with the provisions and standards outlined in state regulations. Several Oregon cities and counties have chosen to enact and enforce the state standards. ... Local governments often adopt their own local noise ordinances--some more strict than the state standards.
At end of the DEQ Noise web page (http://www.deq.state.or.us/nwr/epoc/ch13.htm), it states:
DEQ can provide copies of state noise regulations, informational brochures on noise pollution, as well as a list of acoustical consultants. DEQ also assists local governments in purchasing sound level meters. For more information, contact: DEQ Headquarters, 811 SW Sixth Avenue, Portland, OR 97204; (503) 229-5359 or (800) 452-4011
The State regulations for noise can be found by searching for "airport" in Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR 340-035. Department of Environmental Quality. Noise Control Regulations. In particular, OAR 340-035-0045 (Noise Control Regulations for Airports) is relevant.
The Lincoln County Noise Ordinance below does not appear to include noise produced by airplanes or helicopters, so Hunt's helicopter as it takes off or lands at his heliport or flies low elsewhere in Lincoln County may not violate the County Noise Ordinance, no matter how noisy his helicopter may be. However, Lincoln County Code 1.1630(19b) indicates that "Applicable noise standards of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality shall be met" at heliports.
In the Ordinance below, noise is only prohibited from a "sound producing device" and the list of "sound producing devices" does not include airplanes or helicopters. Accordingly, it appears that if Lincoln County residents want a Noise Ordinance that includes noise produced by airplanes or helicopters, they will have to go to the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners to have airplanes and helicopters included in the LCC 2.2005(5) of the Noise Ordinance as a "sound producing device." Such an addition would need to be worded to not include governmental or bona fide emergency aircraft.
Some local governments evidently enforce State Noise regulations, but I do not know if Lincoln County enforces State noise regulations about airports .
Examples of noise ordinances elsewhere: Noise Regulations and Ordinances of Large U.S. Cities by Noise Pollution Clearinghouse. (Gives links for each state.)
Chapter 2 (Environment and Health) of the Lincoln County Code (LCC) includes the Lincoln County Noise Control Ordinance. Parts that I thought were relevant are copied below:
LCC 2.2000 Title; Area of Application. LCC 2.2000 through 2.2045 shall be known as the Lincoln County Noise Control Ordinance and shall apply within the unincorporated areas of Lincoln County, Oregon. [1989 o.280§1]
LCC 2.2005 Definitions
As used in this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise:
(1) "Idling speed" means a speed at which an engine will run when no pressure is applied to
the accelerator or accelerator linkage.
(2) "Noise sensitive unit" means any building or portion thereof, vehicle, boat or other
structure adapted or used for the overnight accommodation of persons, including, but not limited to,
individual residential units, individual apartments, trailers, hospitals, and nursing homes. [Boldface added]
(3) "Person" means any individual, any public or private corporation, association,
partnership, or other legally recognized public or private entity.
(4) "Plainly audible" means unambiguously communicated to the listener. Plainly audible
sounds include, but are not limited to, understandable musical rhythms, understandable spoken
words, and vocal sounds other than speech which are distinguishable as raised or normal.
(5) "Sound producing device" means [boldface added]:
(a) Loudspeakers, public address systems;
(b) Radios, tape recorders or tape players, phonographs, television sets, stereo systems,
including those installed in a vehicle;
(c) Musical instruments, amplified or unamplified;
(d) Sirens, bells;
(e) Vehicle engines or exhausts, when vehicle is not on a public right-of-way, particularly
when the engine is operating above idling speed;
(f) Vehicle tires, when caused to squeal by excessive speed or acceleration;
(g) Domestic tools; including electric drills, chain saws, lawn mowers, electric saws,
hammers, and similar tools, but only between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. of the following day; and
(h) Heat pumps, air conditioning units, and refrigeration units, including those mounted on
vehicles.
(6) "Vehicle" means automobiles, motorcycles, motorbikes, trucks, buses, and
snowmobiles. [Boldface added--note that airplanes, helicopters, or boats are not included.]
(7) "Firearms" means devices, by whatever name known, which are designed to expel a
projectile or projectiles by the combustion of black powder or smokeless powder. [1989 o.280 §1]
LCC 2.2010 Findings and Policy
(1) The Board of Commissioners for Lincoln County has found that excessive sound can
and does constitute a hazard to the health, safety, welfare, and quality of life of residents of the
county.
(2) The Board has further determined that while certain activities essential to the economic,
social, political, educational and technical advancements of the citizens of the county necessarily
require the production of sounds which may offend, disrupt, intrude and otherwise create hardship
among the citizenry, the Board is obliged to impose some limitations and regulation upon the
production of excessive sound as will reduce the deleterious effects thereof.
(3) It is, therefore, the policy of this Board to prevent and regulate excessive sound
wherever it is deemed harmful to the health, safety, welfare and quality of life of the citizens of
Lincoln County. This chapter shall be liberally construed to effectuate that purpose. [1989 o.280 §1]
[Not copied: LCC 2.2015 Administration and Enforcement]
LCC 2.2020 Sound Measurement
(1) If measurements are made, they shall be made with a sound level meter. The sound level
meter shall be an instrument in good operating condition, meeting the requirements of a Type I or
Type II meter, as specified in ANSI Standard 1.4-1971. For purposes of this chapter, a sound level
meter shall contain at least an A weighed scale and both fast and slow meter response capability.
(2) If measurements are made, personnel making those measurements shall have completed
training in the use of the sound level meter, and measurement procedures consistent with that
training shall be followed.
(3) Measurements may be made at or within 25 feet of the exterior boundary of a noise
sensitive unit which is not the source of the sound, or within a noise sensitive unit which is not the
source of the sound.
(4) All measurements made pursuant to this chapter shall comply with the provisions of this
section. [1989 o.280 §1]
LCC 2.2025 Prohibitions
It shall be unlawful for any person to produce or permit to be produced, with a sound
producing device, sound which:
(1) When measured at or within 25 feet of the exterior perimeter of a noise sensitive unit
which is not the source of the sound, or within a noise sensitive unit which is not the source of the
sound, exceeds:
(a) 50 dBA at any time between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following day, or
(b) 60 dBA at any time between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. the same day, and the sound exceeds the
levels identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection for five consecutive minutes or ten
minutes in any one-half hour period, or when intermittent sounds exceed the identified levels ten or
more times in any one-half hour period.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of subsection (1) above, prohibited sounds shall
not exceed 15 dBA above the levels identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of this
section for any duration.
(3) If the noise source is an idling vehicle licensed to travel upon pubic roads of the state,
the noise source shall not be allowed to exceed the levels identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
subsection (1) of this section for more than 15 consecutive minutes between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00
a.m. the following day and 20 minutes between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. the same day. At no time
may the sound from an idling vehicle, when measured in accordance with subsection (1) of this
section, exceed 15 dBA more than the levels established therein.
(4) If a measurement of the sound is made, subsection (1) of this section shall supersede
subsection (2) of this section and shall be used to determine if a violation exists.
(5) When the sound is emitted from motorboat, it shall not be subject to the standards above
but a violation shall be established where the sound exceeds 75 dBA as measured on shore,
provided that the measurement be taken no closer than 150 feet from the boat. Where a
measurement is taken from a distance closer than 150 feet, a violation shall be established where
the sound exceeds 84 dBA measured no closer than 50 feet from the boat. Motorboats shall not be
operated on public waterways within the county unless equipped with a functioning underwater
exhaust, muffler, or system which continuously pipes water into the exhaust line. [1989 o.280 §1]
LCC 2.2030 Exceptions
Notwithstanding LCC 2.2025, the following exceptions from this chapter are permitted:
(1) Sounds caused by organized athletic or other group activities, when those activities are
conducted on property generally used for those purposes, including: stadiums, parks, schools,
churches, athletic fields, race tracks, airports, and waterways; provided, however, that this
exception shall not impair the Sheriff's power to declare the event or activities otherwise to violate
other laws, ordinances, or regulations.
(2) Sound caused by emergency work, or by the ordinary and accepted use of-emergency
equipment, vehicles and apparatus, whether or not the work is performed by a public or private
agency upon public or private property.
(3) Sounds caused by sources regulated as to sound production by federal law, including,
but not limited to, sounds caused by railroad, aircraft, or commercially licensed water craft
operations.
(4) Sounds caused by bona tide use of emergency warning devices and alarm systems.
(5) Sound caused by blasting activities when performed under a permit issued by
appropriate governmental authorities and only between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., excluding
weekends, unless the permit expressly authorizes otherwise.
(6) Sounds caused by industrial, agricultural or construction organizations or workers
during their normal operations. However, this exception shall not apply to any forest practice, as
defined in ORS 527.620, that is conducted within any urban growth boundary between the hours of
10:00 p.m. and 5:30 a.m., unless a variance has been obtained pursuant to LCC 2.2035.
(7) Sounds made by activities by or on direction of Lincoln County or any other public or
private utility in maintenance, construction, or repair of public or utility improvements in public
rights-of-way, easements, or property.
(8) Sounds caused by motor vehicles operated on public roads, which are regulated by state
law, ORS 815.025.
(9) Sounds created by firearms. Firearms are not regulated by this ordinance. [1989 o. 280 § 1;
1993 o.326 § 1]
LCC 2.2035 Variances
Any person who is planning the use of a sound producing device which may violate any
provision of this chapter may apply to the Sheriff for a variance from the provision:
(1) The application shall state the provision from which a variance is being sought, the
period of time the variance is to apply, the reason for which the variance is sought, and other
supporting information which the Sheriff may reasonably require.
(2) The Sheriff shall consider:
(a) The nature and duration of the sound emitted.
(b) Whether the public health, safety or welfare is endangered.
(c) Whether compliance with the provision would produce no benefit to the public.
(d) Whether previous permits have been issued and the applicant's record of compliance.
(3) A variance may be granted for a specific time interval only.
(4) The sheriff shall, within ten days, deny the application, approve it, or approve it subject
to conditions.
(5) The Sheriff's decision may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners. Notice
of appeal should be delivered to the executive assistant of the Board. The Board shall review the
application de novo and within 15 days deny the application, approve it, or approve it subject to
conditions.
(6) The Sheriff may at any time before or during the operation of a variance granted by the
Sheriff revoke the variance for good cause. The Board may at any time before or during the
operation of any variance revoke the variance for good cause. [1989 o.280 §1]
[Not copied: LCC 2.2040 Additional Remedies; LCC 2.2045 Penalties]
Putting 65 CNEL in Perspective: Actual Airport Complaints Show Calculated CNEL Average Noise Statistics Are Misleading by the El Toro Info Site. Data from the Orange County’s Noise Abatement Office at John Wayne Airport proves that the averaging of loud airplane noise with the quiet moments in between planes - to generate a statistic called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) - is a misleading indicator of annoyance. While, airport advocates claim that residents should not be impacted when noise averages less than 65 decibels CNEL, county data show that most complaints were when "average" noise levels were less than 65 decibels. One of the points is:
Averaging is a common but misleading way to measure aircraft noise impacts. An angry parent near the Federal Express air cargo hub in Greensboro, North Carolina summed it up this way. Telling our small children, who are awakened at night, crying in their beds because they can't sleep, and are frightened by the roar of overhead jet engines, that the noise is not so bad if you average it out over a 24 hour period, won't get them to sleep at three in the morning.
See "Noise Impacts" in Issues & Info by the El Toro Info Site. Good site about how measuring sound levels can be misleading. It also has links to several studies about negative impacts of aircraft noise on people.
How Loud is the Noise? by the El Toro Info Site. "A deafening explosion, on an otherwise quiet day, will yield a low CNEL [Community Noise Equivalent Level] calculation due to the averaging."
Noise--Unwanted Sound: How We Measure and Assess Its Impact by the Federal Aviation Administration.
Aviation Noise Effects by the Federal Aviation Administration. 1985. ("This report, written by the FAA, summarizes the effects of aviation noise in many areas, ranging from human annoyance to impact on real estate values. It is a very informative document, with several graphs and explanatory figures. This is a very long text, so wait for it load completely." It includes a discussion of the way sound levels can be measured, "Noise Metrics.")
Aviation Noise Law Bibliography (Part 5): Noise Abatement; Noise Measurement, Science, and Engineering; Noise Models, Surveys, Projections, and Evaluations.
FAA Environmental Network: Noise. This includes links chosen by the FAA to issues about aircraft noise.
Fly Neighborly Program by Helicopter Association International (HAI)(whose membership includes includes helicopter operators and owners, users, manufacturers, and suppliers); the main HAI web site is at http://www.rotor.com. (The Fly Neighborly Program is a voluntary noise reduction program designed to be implemented worldwide by helicopter pilots. It acknowledges that helicopter noise can be a problem, but that voluntary efforts by pilots to reduce noise is adequate. HAI also notes in their Acoustics/Environmental section that doubling the altitude of a helicopter reduces the noise that reaches the ground by more than half, and they have a HAI Fly Higher Chartthat gives a "recommended height" of 1,000 feet above ground level for small helicopters (which may include Hunt's helicopter) to reduce noise levels on the ground.)
Helicopters landing or taking off at heliports as well as flying low elsewhere have often been complained about because of their noise--this is not a situation unique to Lincoln County. If there wasn't a noise problem that annoyed people, people would not have taken the time and effort to have complained. For information about measuring noise levels, see links in Measurements of Aircraft Noise.
To reduce complaints about helicopter noise, the Helicopter Association International (HAI) has recommended the voluntary Fly Neighborly Program for helicopter pilots. One part of this program is the recommendation that pilots fly higher to reduce noise levels on the ground.
The concerns about noise of Hunt's helicopter taking off or landing at his property have resulted in this controversy that is reported in the Updates and so many letters being written in opposition to his proposed heliport. For example, according to the 20 August 2003 News-Times, the FAA has received complaints about low flights of Ray Hunt's helicopter in the Waldport area.
Elsewhere, aircraft (including helicopter) noise has been a major concern to residents as suggested in the following sampling of web sites:
The following is from the June 27 News-Times article:
Doug Cottam, district wildlife biologist for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife at South Beach, also responded to the planning department. He wrote that ODFW prefers aircraft to use existing airports to minimize conflicts between aircraft and wildlife. And he noted that the Newport airport has a fence to prevent accidents between animals and aircraft, and flights at that airport are not in conflict with wildlife. Cottam noted that two bald eagle nest sites are near the proposed helipad, one within 1 mile of the proposal, with both nesting pairs successfully fledging two chicks last year. The bald eagles are present year round, he added.
"Low level landings and approaches and flights near or around these nests will likely cause disturbance and risk collisions with flying birds," Cottam wrote.
According to the 20 August 2003 News-Times, flights of Ray Hunt's helicopter in the Waldport area have disturbed geese and "animals."
The 27 June 2003 News-Times article reported:
He [Doug Cottam, district wildlife biologist for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife] also noted that the Beaver Creek watershed has a "considerable" elk population, with elk present on land adjacent to Hunt's property. Cottam said he has experience flying low level Bell Jet Rangers to survey elk in the Beaver Creek area, and said those flights disturb wildlife and livestock. "Elk will often destroy pasture fences and crops in their panic to escape," he said. "The elk may injure themselves on fences, and after fences are broken, livestock may escape and end up on roadways." He noted that any damage to property by elk as a result of a disturbance by the helicopter would not be the responsibility of ODFW to address.
In a visit to the area on May 30, I saw cattle and llamas in the fields south or east of 4616 South Beaver Creek Road, and there may also be other livestock present. Duncan and Maureen Campbell have seen 35 elk on their land, so elk are in the area. Further, as already noted, there are many waterfowl present, especially from fall through spring, near the proposed heliport (see Figure 3), Bayview Pasture (Table 2), and at nearby Beaver Creek and Alsea Bay (Table 1). In addition, Bald Eagles at Alsea Bay and Beaver Creek nests could be disturbed by flights to and from the proposed heliport.
The 27 June 2003 News-Times article reported about Doug Cottam's (district wildlife biologist for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife) letter to the Lincoln County Planning and Development Department in opposition to the South Beaver Creek heliport :
Finally, Cottam said that hundreds and sometimes thousands of waterfowl inhabit Alsea Bay and both the north and south forks of Beaver Creek fall through winter, with some nesting year round. Low level helicopter flights will disturb them, he said. And he noted that the Alsea Bay Estuary Plan, which involves the majority of north Alsea Bay, is a Natural Estuarine Unit, the most restrictive of the zoning units.
The following is not a comprehensive listing of references to disturbance of animals by helicopters that are listed in alphabetical order by author. In particular, I have not included studies of animals disturbed by helicopters in mountainous areas. I may add more references to disturbance of animals.
Born, E.W., F. F. Riget, R. Dietz, and D. Andriashek. 1999. Escape responses of hauled out ringed seals (Phoca hispida) to aircraft disturbance. Polar Biology 21(3):171-178. FROM ABSTRACT: The study indicated that the risk of scaring ringed seals into the water can be substantially reduced if small-type helicopters do not approach them closer than about 1500 m (0.9 mi).
Delaney, D.K., T.G. Grubb, P. Beier, L. L.Pater, and M. H. Reiser. 1999. Effects of helicopter noise on Mexican spotted owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:60-76. FROM ABSTRACT: Our data indicate a 105-m [344 ft] buffer zone for helicopter overflights would minimize spotted owl flush response and any potential effects on nesting activity.
Federal Aviation Administration. 1985. Section 9. Effects of Noise on Wild and Domesticated Animals in Aviation Noise Effects (On Noise Pollution Clearinghouse [NPC] Web site.) SYNOPSIS: The FAA noted that species differed in their tolerance of helicopters; from section 9.2.1:
Canadian and Snow Geese did not tolerate helicopter noise at any level. The authors concluded that because any tendency among the geese to adapt remains to be demonstrated, "off-limits" areas may possibly be necessary for such sensitive species.
Frid, A. and L. M. Dill. 2002. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of
predation risk. Conservation Ecology 6(1): 11. An alternative web site is: http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art11
This is a technical review of effects of disturbance that may increase predation risk. Fleeing or a change in feeding behavior in response to an approaching helicopter is noted for several wildlife species in Tables 1 and 2.
Gladwin, D.N., D.A. Asherin, and K.M. Manci. 1987. Effects of aircraft noise and sonic booms on fish and wildlife: results of a survey of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species and Ecological Services Field Offices, Refuges, Hatcheries, and Research Centers. NERC-88/30. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., National Ecology Research Center, Fort Collins, CO. (On Noise Pollution Clearinghouse [NPC] Web site.)
Gladwin, D.N., K.M. Manci, and R. Villella. 1988. Effects of aircraft noise and sonic booms on domestic animals and wildlife: bibliographic abstracts. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. National Ecology Research Center, Ft. Collins, CO. NERC-88/32. (On Noise Pollution Clearinghouse [NPC] Web site. Gives abstracts of many papers about negative impacts of aircraft in general and helicopters in particular.)
Grubb, T. G. and W. W. Bowerman. 1997. Variations in breeding Bald Eagle responses to jets, light planes and helicopters. Journal of Raptor Research 31:213-222. SYNOPSIS: They found that helicopters often caused nesting Bald Eagles to fly when within 200 m (656 ft) of nests and recommended that aircraft be excluded from within 600 m (1,969 ft or 0.4 mile) of nests. Even when helicopters were 600 m or more away, eagles had a low level response in 19% of flights.
Harestad, A. S. 1978. Diurnal activity of northern sea lions, Eumetopias jubatus (Schreber). Syesis 11:279-280. When a helicopter flew over a Northern (Steller's) Sea Lion colony at an altitude of 100 m (328 ft), there was an immediate increase in sea lion activity with some leaving and entering the ocean and others moving around to avoid the noise.
Manci, K.M., D.N. Gladwin, R. Villella, and M.G. Cavendish. 1988. Effects of aircraft noise and sonic booms on domestic animals and wildlife: a literature synthesis. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. National Ecology Research Center, Ft. Collins, CO. NERC-88/29. (On Noise Pollution Clearinghouse [NPC] Web site.)
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. 2001. [Search for "helicopter" in] MBNMS [Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary] Permit Activity Report, May 16, 2001 by Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. SYNOPSIS: In MBNMS-2001-024, a one-day permit for helicopter overflights below 1,000 ft of the Big Sur Marathon was submitted but "This activity was denied based on the common murres which are nesting at this site and particularly sensitive to helicopter disturbance."
Radle, A. L. [Search repeatedly for "heli" in] The Effect of Noise on Wildlife: a Literature Review.
Ward, D. H. and R. A. Stehn. 1989. Response of Brant and other geese to aircraft disturbance at Izembek Lagoon, Alaska. Final Report, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Fish and Wildlife Research Center to Mineral Management Service, Outer Continental Shelf Program, Anchorage, Alaska. OCS Study MMS 90-0046. (This is QL696.A52 W371 at Oregon State University Libraries. See data from p. 82 and 106 in Table 3 that indicate helicopter disturbance of Canada Geese and Brant.) Pre-Existing Potential Topographic or Structural Hazards Near Proposed Heliport, Pre-Existing Potential Bird Strike Hazards Near Proposed Heliport
Because of concerns about human safety, effects of noise on people, and effects of helicopters on animals, it is not surprising that property values for landowners near heliports or airports may decline as their property becomes less tranquil and consequently less desirable. This may also happen for property near the proposed heliport, even if it is used infrequently.
See "Noise Impacts on Property Value" in Aviation Noise Law Bibliography (Part 3).
Airport Diminution in Value by Randall Bell; this was a 1997 article submitted to the Orange County (California) Board of Supervisors. Bell holds an MBA in Real Estate from UCLA, is a Certified General Real Estate