99-003181 David La Hart And Val La Hart vs. Department Of Transportation Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, February 3, 2000.

Summary: Application for seaplane base site approval should be denied because the applicant has not provided a final FAA air space approval, Respondent did not consider the minimum safety standards in FAA Advisory Circular No. 150/5395-1, and site is inadequate.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SHIRLEY W. DUNBAR and )

DAVID M. DUNBAR, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 99-3180

)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, )

)

Respondent. )

______________________________)

DAVE LA HART and )

VAL LA HART, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 99-3181

)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, )

)

Respondent. )

______________________________)

HOWARD GRINER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 99-3182

)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, )

)

Respondent. )

______________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A formal hearing was conducted in this case on November 16,

1999, in Tallahassee, Florida, before the Division of

Administrative Hearings, by its Administrative Law Judge,

Suzanne F. Hood.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioners: Thomas Crapps, Esquire

Douglas Law Firm, P.A.

Post Office Box 1674

Tallahassee, Florida 32302

For Respondent: Ollie L. Evans, Esquire

Department of Transportation

Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58

605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether Respondent properly issued Site

Approval Order No. 3-99-01 for Ochlockonee Bay Seaplane Base

pursuant to Chapter 330, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-60,

Florida Administrative Code.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On November 24, 1998, Respondent Department of

Transportation (Respondent) issued a Notice of Intent to issue

site approval for a proposed private seaplane base to be known

as Ochlockonee Bay Seaplane Base. The Notice of Intent stated

that a public meeting would be conducted on January 14, 1999, to

determine the following:

(a) that the site is adequate for the

proposed seaplane base; (b) that the

proposed seaplane base if constructed or

established, will conform to minimum

standards of safety contained in Rule

Chapter 14-60, F.A.C.; and (c) that safe

air traffic patterns could be worked out for

such proposed seaplane base and for all

existing airports and approved airport sites

in its vicinity.

On June 21, 1999, Respondent issued Site Approval Order

No. 3-99-01. This order granted site approval for the proposed

seaplane base with the following provisions:

1. All operations are to be conducted in

VFR [visual flight rules] weather

conditions.

2. Aircraft operations are limited to use

only by the licensee and invited guests. It

is the responsibility of each invited

pilot(s) to comply with federal flight

requirements.

3. That the provisions in FAA [Federal

Aviation Administration] approval letter

dated May 22, 1998, be complied with.

affic patterns and operational

procedures are subject to review by this

department prior to licensing or

relicensing.

This determination in no way preempts or

waives any ordinances, laws or regulations

of any other governmental body or agency.

By letter dated June 27, 1999, Petitioners Shirley W.

Dunbar and David M. Dunbar requested an administrative hearing

to contest the site approval. Petitioners David LaHart and Val

LaHart requested an administrative hearing by letter dated

July 1, 1999. Petitioner Howard Griner requested an

administrative hearing by letter dated July 6, 1999. Respondent

referred these requests to the Division of Administrative

Hearings on July 28, 1999.

The Division of Administrative Hearings assigned DOAH Case

Nos. 99-3180, 99-3181, and 99-3182 to the requests for an

administrative hearing filed by Petitioners Shirley and David

Dunbar, David and Val LaHart, and Howard Griner respectively.

The undersigned consolidated the cases by order dated August 13,

1999. Hereinafter, Petitioners Shirley and David Dunbar, David

and Val LaHart, and Howard Griner shall be referred to

collectively as Petitioners.

A Notice of Hearing dated August 13, 1999, scheduled a

formal hearing on November 16-17, 1999. During the hearing,

Petitioners presented the testimony of three (3) witnesses and

offered thirteen (13) exhibits, which were accepted into

evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of one (1) witness

and offered no exhibits for admission into evidence.

The Transcript of the proceeding was filed on December 6,

1999.

On December 16, 1999, the parties filed a Joint Motion for

Continuance requesting additional time to file their proposed

recommended orders. This motion was granted by order dated

December 20, 1999.

The parties filed their Proposed Recommended Orders on

January 6, 1999.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On July 8, 1997, Walt Dickson, the applicant, filed an

Airport Site Approval and License Application with Respondent

for a seaplane base located two (2) miles south of Panacea,

Florida, in Ochlockonee Bay, Wakulla County, Florida, at

Latitude N29 degrees, 59'35" N, Longitude W 84 degrees, 23'73"

W.

2. The application gives the following legal description

of the proposed facility: Lot lying between Williams Brothers

Lumber Co. lot and Troy Fain lot on river in SW 1/4 of Section

1.

3. A map of the proposed seaplane base was attached to the

application. The map shows a sea lane 1/ toward the middle of

Ochlockonee Bay. The sea lane has an east/west heading. It is

three (3) miles long with a primary width of one (1) mile and a

usable width of one-half (1/2) mile. The application does not

indicate the exact position of the sea lane.

4. The application's map indicates that a bridge for U.S.

Highway 98 is located east of the proposed sea lane and

shoreline facilities. The bridge crosses the bay, connecting

the bay's northern and southern shores. The bridge has an

approximate height of 42 feet above sea level. East of the

bridge, the mouth of the Ochlockonee Bay opens into the

Apalachee Bay and the Gulf of Mexico.

5. The application's map indicates that the shoreline

facilities of the proposed seaplane base are located on the

northern shore of the Ochlockonee Bay, west of the bridge and

east of Bayside Marina. A plot of the proposed shoreline

facility shows a dock or pier, of undetermined length and width

extending into the bay.

6. Ms. Ann Tiller, Respondent's aviation licensing

specialist for district three, performed the initial review of

the subject application. She considered Chapter 330, Florida

Statutes, Chapter 14-60, Florida Administrative Code, and FAA

Advisory Circular No. 150/5395 in conducting her review of the

application.

7. First, Ms. Tiller reviewed the application to ensure

that it was complete. She determined that the application

contained, among other things, the following information:

FAA air space determination, zoning approval

from the appropriate governmental agency,

copy of the deed, lease or easement, legal

description that indicates section,

township, range and geographical

coordinates, general location maps showing

nearby roads, towns and landmarks, U.S.

Geological Survey quadrangle maps . . . [o]r

equivalent with facility plotted.

8. Ms. Tiller testified that the application "in itself

probably would not show that [the site] is adequate." She

stated that "[w]hen [the applicant] sends me the application, he

is telling me that he thinks it is adequate."

9. The application did not address the following factors

outlined in FAA Advisory Circular No. 150/5395: performance

characteristics of the proposed seaplane, water currents or wave

action, shifting channels, ship or boating activity on the

water, prevailing winds, wind data during daylight hours,

adequacy of the water depth for a seaplane, or information about

the taxi channel dimensions for the take-out and launch ramp.

10. On May 8, 1998, Ms. Tiller conducted a site inspection

to determine the adequacy of the site. She did not go out into

the bay on a boat.

11. During the inspection, Ms. Tiller advised the

applicant's representative that the required approach ratio for

the takeoff and landing area was 20 to 1 and that the applicant

would need to install a windsock before receiving a license.

She made a general observation of the proposed site, finding no

obvious reason to deny site approval.

12. After making the inspection, Ms. Tiller completed an

Airport Site Inspection report. The report states that the site

"is feasible for the proposed use and can meet the requirements

set forth in Airport Licensing and Zoning Rule Chapter 14-60."

Ms. Tiller did not consider the factors listed in the FAA

Advisory Circular in making this determination.

13. According to Ms. Tiller, the standards in the FAA

Advisory Circular apply after the applicant receives site

approval. She considers them as guidelines during the licensing

phase of the application review, showing "what possibly could be

done."

14. By letter dated May 22, 1998, the FAA informed the

applicant as follows:

. . . it has been determined that the

subject seaplane base will not adversely

affect the safe and efficient use of

airspace by aircraft provided the following

requirements are complied with:

1. All operations are conducted in VFR

weather conditions.

2. The landing area is limited to private

use.

3. You execute and maintain an operational

letter of agreement with the Wakulla County

Airport that would insure operation at this

proposed seaplane base will not disrupt or

conflict with operations at the existing

public use airport.

We recommend you reference FAR [Federal

Aviation Regulations] 91.69, Right of Way

Rules; Water Operations and comply with FAA

Advisory Circular, AC 150/5395-1, Seaplane

Bases.

15. On April 19, 1999, the Wakulla County Board of County

Commissioners executed an Operational Letter of Agreement

between the Ochlockonee Bay Seaplane Base and the Wakulla County

Airport.

16. Prior to the hearing, Bobby Grice, Respondent's Public

Transportation Manager, made a site inspection. He did not go

out into the bay on a boat.

17. Mr. Grice determined that the proposed takeoff and

landing area met the required approach ratio of 20 to 1. He

also concluded that the proposed sea lane, which is west of the

bridge with a heading of 927, did not require a pilot to takeoff

and land in close proximity to the bridge. Mr. Grice reached

this conclusion without knowing the precise location of the

takeoff and landing area.

18. Mr. Grice's observation of the site did not reveal

anything that "[p]rohibited [him] from saying that . . .

somewhere in the bay that's 3 miles long and a mile wide, that

somewhere in there we cannot find an area that is at least 1800

feet long, that's at least deep enough for a plane, and without

obstruction."

19. Mr. Grice testified as follows when questioned

regarding the possible placement of crab traps in the area that

serves as the proposed takeoff and landing area:

I would not know if someone had gone in

there and put [a crab trap] out, no more

than I would know if one was out there with

a motorboat running over it. But with the

low tide, not the lowest, that's when we

would go out and look with the applicant.

And at that time if we saw some areas [where

crab traps could not be seen] at low tide,

then we would certainly assume that . . . at

higher tide that [the crab traps] would not

be in the way.

20. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that crab

traps, twelve (12) to eighteen (18) inches in height, are

exposed in the proposed seaplane runway during tides which are

low but not the lowest. When the tide is higher, the crab traps

are submerged, leaving no indication as to how deep they are in

the water. In addition to crab traps, other debris such as

picnic tables and pieces of destroyed docks are submerged or

floating at unknown locations in the bay.

21. Mr. Grice saw channel markers in the bay. He did not

know whether there were any markers in the area of the proposed

sea lane. He assumed that the proposed sea lane area was large

enough for the applicant to find at least some place where

channel markers would not interfere with the required minimum

length and approaches.

22. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that

channel markers are located directly in the proposed flight path

of the seaplane. However, there is no persuasive evidence that

these channel markers create a hazard in the approach and

departure path of the proposed sea lane.

23. The evidence also shows that the largest concentration

of channel markers is located near the seaplane base's taxi and

launch areas along the north shore of the bay. The seaplane

will have to taxi across the channel and over the mudflats,

areas of the bay with soft bottoms, to reach the proposed sea

lane.

24. Mr. Grice did not consider the depth of the water in

the proposed launch area, taxi area, and sea lane. Therefore,

he did not know whether the water depth was adequate for a

seaplane. He did not know what type of seaplane(s) would use

the seaplane base. According to Mr. Grice, Respondent can place

restrictions on the site before licensing to prohibit the use of

the seaplane base when the water is at a depth that Respondent

determines is unsafe.

25. The depth of the water at mean lower low water levels

ranges between one (1) and four (4) feet in the proposed sea

lane area. The four (4) foot soundings are located at the

eastern tip of the proposed sea lane area, closet to the bridge.

26. The depth of the water at mean lower low water levels

ranges between one-half (1/2) foot and three (3) feet along the

bay's northern shore in the vicinity of the seaplane base's

launch area.

27. Respondent asserts that its primary concern is safety.

Therefore, Respondent makes a judgement call about boats and

people swimming in the landing area. There is no evidence that

Respondent considered the effect of boat traffic before

approving the site at issue here.

28. The channel of the bay is within 100 feet of the place

where the proposed seaplane will be taken in and out of the

water. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that many

grouper boats and sport fishing boats use the channel on weekday

mornings. On the weekends, boat and jet ski traffic in the

channel increases substantially. The weekend boat traffic in

the channel is fairly constant.

29. The prevailing wind on the bay is out of the southeast

or southwest during most of the day. The prevailing wind runs

perpendicular to the proposed sea lane area. A crosswind

takeoff and landing is dangerous, especially over a certain

speed.

30. The proposed seaplane base is located 80 feet from a

dock referred to as the Williams dock. A channel marker is only

a few feet from the end of the dock. The greater weight of the

evidence indicates that taking a seaplane in and out of the

water at the proposed seaplane base launch area is dangerous due

to the following conditions: (a) swift channel current of six to

ten knots that runs horizontal to the bay's northern shore and

perpendicular to the dock; (b) heavy boat traffic in the

channel; (c) the concentration of channel markers near the

launch area; (d) prevailing winds which run almost perpendicular

to the proposed launch area; and (e) the close proximity of the

Williams dock.

31. Respondent considers site approval as permission to

build the proposed airport. According to Mr. Grice, "[i]t gives

the applicant[s] some kind of assurance that they don't go out

and spend a lot of money and then DOT comes back and goes

through this hearing process after they have spent a lot."

32. Respondent uses the FAA Advisory Circular as a

guideline primarily during the licensing phase of application

review. Respondent acknowledges that the language in each

provision of the circular determines whether a provision is

advisory or mandatory. Respondent admits that provisions of the

circular containing the words "should" or "shall" relate to

mandatory safety issues.

33. Approximately two weeks before the hearing, the FAA

requested clarification concerning the coordinates of the

seaplane base because its proposed latitude and longitude as

provided by the applicant may be incorrect. If the FAA does not

issue an approval after receiving clarification, Respondent will

deny the application due to the lack of an FAA air space

determination.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

34. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this

proceeding. Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

35. Petitioners must prove by a preponderance of the

evidence that the proposed seaplane site does not meet the

requirements of Section 330.30, Florida Statutes, and Rules 14-

60.005 and 14-60.007, Florida Administrative Code. Florida

Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., and the

Department of Environmental Regulation , 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st

DCA 1981).

36. Section 334.044(2), Florida Statutes, requires

Respondent to "[t]o adopt rules, procedures, and standards for

the conduct of its business operations and the implementation of

any provision of law for which the department is responsible."

37. Section 330.29, Florida Statutes, provides as follows:

330.29 Administration and enforcement;

rules; standards for airport sites and

airports.--It is the duty of the department

to:

(1) Administer and enforce the provisions

of this chapter.

(2) Establish minimum standards for

airport sites and airports under its

licensing jurisdiction.

(3) Adopt rules pursuant to sections

120.536(1) and 120.54 to implement the

provisions of this chapter.

38. Section 330.30, Florida Statutes, provides as follows,

in pertinent part:

330.30 Approval of airport sites and

licensing of airports; fees.--

(1) SITE APPROVALS; REQUIREMENTS, FEES,

EFFECTIVE PERIOD, REVOCATION.--

(a) Except as provided in subsection (3),

the owner or lessee of any proposed airport

shall, prior to the acquisition of the site

or prior to the construction or

establishment of the proposed airport,

obtain approval of the airport site from the

department. . . . The department, after

inspection of the airport site, shall grant

the site approval if it is satisfied:

1. That the site is adequate for the

proposed airport;

2. That the proposed airport, if

constructed or established, will conform to

minimum standards of safety and will comply

with applicable county or municipal zoning

requirements;

3. That all nearby airports,

municipalities, and property owners have

been notified and any comments submitted by

them have been given adequate consideration;

and

4. That safe air-traffic patterns can be

worked out for the proposed airport and for

all existing airport site in its vicinity.

(b) Site approval may be granted subject

to any reasonable conditions which the

department may deem necessary to protect the

public health, safety, or welfare. . . .

39. Rule 14-60.003(1), Florida Administrative Code, states

as follows, in pertinent part:

(1) Purpose. The purpose of this rule

chapter is to promote safe civil aviation by

eliminating hazards; to provide standards

for airport sites and categories; to license

airports subject to the licensing

requirements of Chapter 330, Florida

Statutes; to provide for airport markings;

and to promote flight safety by providing

for airspace protection.

40. Rule 14-60.005(8), Florida Administrative Code, set

out the requirements for site approval as follows, in pertinent

part:

(8) Site Approval.

(a) Prior to receiving site approval, an

applicant shall:

1. Demonstrate that the site is adequate

for the proposed airport.

2. Demonstrate that the proposed airport,

if constructed or established, will conform

to minimum standards of safety as defined

herein.

3. Include documentation evidencing local

zoning approval by the appropriate

governmental agency. Where there is no

local zoning, a written statement of that

fact from the appropriate governmental

agency official shall be submitted.

4. Provide the Department a list of all

airports and municipalities within 15

nautical miles of the proposed airport and

all property owners within 1,000 feet of the

proposed airport or within 300 feet,

horizontal measurement, of the primary

surface of a proposed heliport or helistop.

5. Provide the Department with a copy of

FAA airspace determination, of applicable,

or, if not applicable, demonstrate that safe

air traffic patterns could be worked out for

the proposed airport.

6. Demonstrate that the runway(s) on the

proposed airport will not be within 5,000

feet of any solid waste management facility,

monofill, or sludge land spreading for

airports serving only non-turbine aircraft,

or within 10,000 feet of any aforementioned

facilities or operations for airports

serving turbine-driven aircraft.

(b) All airport sites must be inspected by

a representative of the Department and a

written report containing a recommendation

shall be filed by the Department.

1. If the inspection shows that the site is

feasible and can meet the requirements set

forth in Rule 14-60.005(9)(a)1.--5. [sic]

above, the Department shall issue a notice

of intent.

a. A notice of intent shall state the name

of the applicant; give the location of the

airport by latitude and longitude as well as

by section, township and range, and state

the type of license applied for and the

earliest date a site approval order may be

issued.

b. The notice of intent shall be published

in a newspaper of general circulation in the

county in which the proposed site is

located. . . .

c. Interested persons, in order to request

a public meeting, must submit a written

request to the Department. . . .

d. If requested in writing, a public

meeting shall be conducted prior to the

issuance of a site approval order. . . .

e. If after the public meeting, if one is

held, and in full consideration of any

comments received, the Department determines

that the proposed airport can comply with

the standards set forth in Rule 14-

60.005(9)(a)1.--6. [sic] and considering the

airspace determination from FAA and "area of

critical concern" approval from the Florida

Department of Environmental Protection (if

such approval or determination is

applicable), the Department shall issue a

site approval order.

f. The site approval order shall state:

(I) The name and mailing address of the

applicant;

(II) The location of the proposed airport

by geographical coordinates (latitude and

longitude); section, township and range; and

distance and direction from the nearest

community; and

(III) Any special conditions which must be

met prior to licensing.

41. Rule 14-60.006, Florida Administrative Code, sets

forth the requirements for airport licensing as follows, in

pertinent part:

(1) Upon compliance with all conditions

enumerated in the site approval order,

satisfactory final inspection by a

representative of the Department, and

payment of the required license fee, an

airport license shall be issued subject to

any conditions deemed necessary to protect

the public health, safety, or welfare.

* * *

(8) Specific conditions will be attached to

all private airports, limited airports, and

emergency hospital helistops in accordance

with the following provision. Safety

considerations and operational procedures

will be added as conditions to any aviation

facility license to insure the public

health, safety, or welfare. Conditions

implementing zoning restrictions related to

airport operations will also be added as

needed to avoid unnecessary disturbance of

persons or activities on the ground.

(a) At a minimum, the conditions for a

private airport will include:

1. Aircraft operations are limited to use

only by the licensee and invited guests. It

is the responsibility of each invited

pilot(s) to comply with federal flight

requirements.

affic patterns and operational

procedures are subject to review by the

Department prior to licensing.

42. Rule 14-60.007, Florida Administrative Code, sets

forth the minimum standards for airports. This rule requires

private airport landing strips to be at least 1,800 feet in

length with 100 feet for the primary surface width and 50 feet

for the usual landing width. Rule 14-60.007(2), Florida

Administrative Code. The rule also sets the approach zones for

public and private airports at a 20 to 1 approach slope. Rule

14-60.007(3), Florida Administrative Code.

43. Rule 14-60.007(5), Florida Administrative Code, sets

forth specific minimum standards for seaplane bases as follows,

in pertinent part:

(a) No seaplane base shall be approved

which requires aircraft to land or take off

in close proximity to a bridge, public

beach, poser line, boat dock or other area

which could constitute a danger to person or

property.

(b) If a seaplane is to be based, moored,

or hangared at any given location in

Florida, a Florida airport license must be

obtained.

(c) All seaplane bases shall have, in

addition to the facilities required of land

airports (where applicable), the following

minimum services facilities:

1. At least three U.S. Coast Guard approved

life preservers of the ring or throwing

type, with sufficient line attached to each,

shall be kept available during hours of

operation.

2. An operational propelled boat (an

outboard is permissible) shall be

immediately available at all times when

flights are in progress.

3. A dock or float, suitable for the type

of seaplane using the base, shall be so

located as to afford the maximum degree of

safety in taxiing approach.

4. Suitable beaching facilities for the type

of aircraft using the base shall be

provided. Where an adequate ramp is

maintained, the dock or float may be

omitted.

5. A source of fresh water at the beaching

area and sufficient hoses for washing

aircraft shall be accessible.

6. An adequate supply of line for heaving,

towing, securing, or rescue operation shall

be kept available.

7. The minimum water depths and landing

area lengths shall be posted at the dock

area and noted.

(d) Seaplane base standards as defined in

the current FAA Advisory Circular 150/5395-

1, Seaplane Bases, are incorporated herein

by reference.

44. Depending on the language of each provision, FAA

Advisory Circular Number 150/5395-1, provides standards and/or

guidelines for seaplane bases. Some of the provisions include

minimum safety standards which Respondent "should" consider in

determining whether the site of a seaplane base is adequate, and

if constructed or established, will conform to minimum standards

of safety. Some of the relevant provisions include, but are not

limited to, the following:

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

* * *

2. EXPLANATION OF TERMS

* * *

d. Hazard to Air Navigation. Any

obstruction to air navigation having a

substantial adverse effect upon the safe and

efficient use of the navigable airspace by

aircraft or upon the operation of an air

navigation facility. An obstruction to air

navigation is presumed to be hazard to air

navigation until an FAA study determines

otherwise.

e. Obstruction. Any object, including a

parked aircraft, which may hinder aircraft

operation or which may have an adverse

effect upon the operation of an air

navigation facility.

f. Obstruction to Air Navigation. Any

object, including a parked aircraft, located

in navigable airspace.

* * *

CHAPTER 2. SITE SELECTION

* * *

12. WATER OPERATING AREA

a. Size. The size of the water operation

area depends on: The performance

characteristics of the seaplanes using the

site, existing or potential obstructions in

the surrounding area, water currents, and

wave action.

b. Location. The location of the water

operation area and related shore development

is influenced by:

* * *

(5) atmospheric and meteorological

conditions, such as fog, wind, and smoke;

* * *

(7) ship and boating activity. . .

* * *

c. Coordinated Use. Although each

community and site is different, a

relationship does exist, and operational use

of seaplanes must be coordinated with other

users and interested parties in the area.

Ample maneuvering and turning areas should

be provided with consideration made for

shipping, pleasure boats, prevailing winds,

and currents.

13. APPROACH AND DEPARTURE PATHS.

a. Populated Areas. The approach and

departure paths should be clear of

established shipping or boating lanes. An

over water approach is preferable to an

approach-departure path over populated

areas, beaches, and shore developments.

Where surrounding development mitigates

against straight-in approach and/or

departure paths, an over water climbing turn

or letdown procedure may be possible.

b. Operational Limitations. The approach

and departure paths should be clear of

hazards. If an obstruction to air

navigation, determined to be a hazard,

cannot be altered or removed, the FAA will

impose aircraft operational limitations,

e.g. limit the type of aircraft operations,

to mitigate the hazard. Lighting, or

marking obstructions to air navigation is

frequently sufficient to preclude an object

being a hazard and avoid the need for

operational limitations.

14. WATER AREAS. When selecting a site, it

is necessary to choose one that has adequate

length, width, and depth dimensions, as well

as an unobstructed approach and departure

path for the type of seaplanes to be

accommodated.

a. Current Flow. Landing and takeoff

area should be located where the currents

are less than 3.5 mph (5.5 kn/h). Where

currents exceed this recommendation,

provision should be made to allow space to

accommodate handling difficulties

particularly in the slow taxiing mode used

to approach a floating dock or in beaching

operation. It is preferable to have the

current flow away from the dock or float.

Prevailing winds may negate some adverse

effect of currents. The following locations

should be avoided:

(1) currents that exceed 7 mph (12 km/h);

* * *

15. WATER SURFACE CONDITIONS.

* * *

b. Floating Debris. Areas subject to

excessive debris or debris over extended

periods of time should be avoided. Logs are

not only a hazard to aircraft, but also to

docking facilities constructed in the river.

A floating log moving at river speed has

considerable momentum and the potential for

destruction when it impacts a fixed object.

* * *

17. SEA LANE ALIGNMENT.

a. Operational Flexibility. An unmarked

sea lane or water operating area is normally

the choice of seaplane pilots. This allows

the pilot to take advantage of the entire

water area in order to adjust landing and

takeoff operation for current, wind, and

waves.

b. Prevailing Winds. If a sea lane is

designated, it should be aligned to provide

maximum wind coverage. It may be desirable

to limit wind analyses to wind data taken

during daylight hours since seaplane

operation are almost nil after dark.

c. Wind Data. Recorded wind observations

taken in the immediate vicinity of the site

over an extended period of time are the most

desirable. When local observations are not

available, data from a nearby locality or

airport can be used. Wind data should be

validated by comparing observed wind

conditions at the proposed water operating

area with winds reported at the nearby

location. These comparisons should be made

under conditions of high and low wind

velocity, from all quadrants, on both clear

and cloudy days, and at substantially

different temperatures.

18. BOTTOM CONDITIONS.

a. Type. Soil type and bottom conditions

can influence construction of fixed and

floating dock structures, as well as affect

taxi operations from the water operating

area to the shoreline facility. Mud bottoms

ordinarily present little or not

difficulty. . . .

b. Conditions. . . .Objects that project

from the bottom and constitute a water

hazard should be removed. If this is

impractical, then the objects should be

conspicuously marked to alert users to their

presence.

19. BIRD HAZARDS. The location of bird

sanctuaries or areas that attract flocks of

birds should be considered when orienting

water operating areas. Waterways

historically used by large flocks of birds

should be avoided.

* * *

CHAPTER 3. WATER OPERATING AREA

* * *

22. WATER OPERATING AREA DIMENSIONS. A

water operating area at least 2,500 feet

(750m) by 200 feet (60m) is recommended.

This size will accommodate a sea lane 2,500

feet (750m) by 100 feet (30m) with 200 foot

(60m) diameter turning basin at each end.

Although a depth of 6 feet (1.8m) is

preferred, a minimum depth of 3 feet (1m) is

adequate for single-engine operation. The

length of the water operating area needs to

be increased by 7 percent per 1000 feet

(300m) of elevation above sea level to

compensate for the change in density

altitude.

23. TAXI CHANNEL DIMENSIONS. A taxi

channel for small seaplanes should have a

minimum width of 125 feet (38m), although a

width of 150 feet (45m) or more is

desirable. The channel should provide

direct access to the onshore facility and,

when possible, should be oriented so the

approach to the ramp or float will be into

the prevailing wind or

current. A minimum clearance of 50 feet

(15m) should be provided between the side of

the channel and the nearest obstruction.

* * *

CHAPTER 4. SHORELINE FACILITIES

* * *

26. INTRODUCTION

a. Shoreline Facilities. Shoreline

installations provide two general functions:

(1) enable servicing, loading and

unloading, and mooring without removing the

aircraft from the water, and

(2) provide haul-out facilities for

removing seaplanes from the water for fresh

water wash downs and maintenance.

27. SLIPWAYS. Rectangular slips dredged in

the shore line are common and economical and

often need no specially constructed sides or

ends. . . .

a. Location. A slipway should be where

the water level change is not greater than 2

feet (.6m) and the minimum low water depth

is not less than 1.5 feet (1.5m).

* * *

28. RAMPS. Ramps vary widely in size,

shape, and construction materials. . . .

a. Location. A minimum of 100 feet (30m)

of unobstructed water should be available

directly offshore from the ramp, in the

direction from which approaches are normally

made.

* * *

d. Depth. A 4 foot (1.2m) depth of toe

will provide sufficient clearance for most

waterborne aircraft. A 3 foot (1m) depth

will accommodate all but the heaviest types

of amphibians. An 18 inch ( 45cm) depth is

adequate for small, light floatplanes. In

all cases, depth dimension should be

established based on the low water level

datum in that locality.

* * *

29. FIXED DOCKS.

a. Location. A minimum of 100 feet (30m)

of unobstructed water or a turning basin

should be available in the direction from

which approaches are normally made to the

floating dock. Docks should be located so

that aircraft have access to both sides.

Aircraft are usually tied on the inshore

side of the dock during inclement weather,

in order to use the dock as a breakwater.

b. Clearance. The recommended minimum

clearance between the centerline of a taxi

route and the near faces of piers, floats,

ramps, or marine railway is 60 feet (18m).

Waterborne aircraft can safely taxi past

obstructions as close to the centerline of

the taxi route as one-half their wingspan

plus 15 feet (5m); however, this factor

should be increased at locations having

strong currents and windy conditions. An

unobstructed dock surface area 21 feet

(6.5m) wide will provide for wing clearance

over the dock and permit most floatplanes or

small amphibians to come alongside the dock

or pier.

c. Separation. When aircraft operate

under their own power into, out of, or

between mooring positions, the recommended

minimum separation between the limits of the

mooring positions is 30 feet (10m). When

aircraft are moved by hand, the separation

distance between the centers of the berthing

or mooring positions should be no less than

60 feet (18m).

* * *

33. PIERS. Piers are recommended where the

variation in water level is 16 inches ( 45cm)

or less.

a. Location. A minimum of 100 feet (30m)

of unobstructed water or a turning basin

should be available in the direction from

which approaches are normally made to the

pier. Piers should be located so that

access to them by the public will not

require crossing the apron or hangar area.

b. Design Concepts. The pier should

extend into the water to a point where the

depth at mean low water level is at least 3

feet (1m). . . .

FAA Advisory Circular Number 150/5395-1 (emphasis added).

45. Respondent should deny the application for site

approval for three reasons. First, the record shows that the

applicant has not provided a final FAA airspace determination as

required by Section 330.30(1)(a)4., Florida Statutes, and Rule

14-60.005(8)(a)5., Florida Administrative Code. The FAA has

requested clarification of the longitude and latitude

coordinates for the proposed seaplane base. The application is

incomplete pending receipt of the FAA's determination that the

proposed seaplane base will not adversely affect the safe and

efficient use of airspace by aircraft.

46. Second, the application for site appro val should be

denied because Respondent has not considered all of the relevant

minimum safety standards contained in FAA Advisory Circular

Number 150/5395-1. Respondent must consider these safety

standards before it issues a site approval order. Section

330.30(1)(a)2., Florida Statutes; Rules 14-60.005(8)2., and 14-

60.007(5)(d), Florida Administrative Code.

47. Respondent considered the following in determining

that the proposed site met minimum safety standards: (a)

whether the approach slope met the 20 to 1 ratio pursuant to

Rule 14-60.007(3), Florida Administrative Code; (b) whether the

proposed sea lane met the minimum length and width requirements

pursuant to Rule 14-60.007(2), Florida Administrative Code; and

(c) whether a sea plane would have to take off and land in close

proximity to the bridge pursuant to Rule 14-60.007(5)(a),

Florida Administrative Code.

48. Respondent did not consider provisions in the FAA

Advisory Circular Number 150.5395-1 related to the following:

(a) the performance characteristics of the seaplane(s) using the

site; (b) existing or potential obstructions in the surrounding

area; (c) water currents; (d) prevailing winds; (e) boating

activity; and (f) water depth. See FAA Circular Advisory Number

150/5395-1, Chapters 2-4, cited above. All of these factors,

except the type of seaplane(s) using the facility, involve

safety issues that are beyond the applicant's control.

49. In the instant case, consideration of these factors is

necessary to determine whether the proposed site is adequate,

and if constructed, will comply with minimum safety standards.

Additionally, Respondent's failure to consider these factors

during the site application and site inspection process, is

contrary to Respondent's stated policy of ensuring that the

applicant does not spend a lot of money on an inadequate site.

50. Finally, Petitioners presented competent evidence that

the proposed site is not adequate and does not meet minimum

safety standards. The site contains numerous obstructions, such

as crab traps in the vicinity of the taxi channel and the sea

lane. Channel markers, which are concentrated in the channel,

also obstruct a seaplane's approach to and departure from the

launch area. Prevailing winds from the southeast and southwest

present cross winds to the takeoff and landing area. Prevailing

winds will not be available in the direction from which

approaches are made to the dock. Water in the sea lane, taxi

channel, and launch area is too shallow for single-engine

operations. Boat traffic is heavy and concentrated in the

channel near the launch area. Water currents in the channel are

too strong in the taxi and launch area. The proximity of the

launch area is too close to the Williams dock. All of these

conditions constitute a danger to persons or property.

Respondent did not present any persuasive evidence to the

contrary.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED

That Respondent rescind Site Approval Order 3-99-01 and

deny the site approval application for the Ochlockonee Bay

Seaplane Base.

DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 2000, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

SUZANNE F. HOOD

Administrative Law Judg e

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone] SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of th e

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 3rd day of February, 2000.

ENDNOTE

1/ A sea lane is a defined path on a seaplane base prescribed

for the landing and takeoff run of aircraft along its length.

FAA AC 150/5395-1, Section 2-g.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Thomas Crapps, Esquire

Douglas Law Firm, P.A.

Post Office Box 1674

Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Ollie L. Evans, Esquire

Department of Transportation

Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58

605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458

Thomas F. Barry, Secretary

Department of Transportation

Haydon Burns Building

605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450

Pamela Leslie, General Counsel

Department of Transportation

Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58

605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.