[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
JOINT HEARING ON H.R. 3661, TO HELP ENSURE GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT
ACCESS TO
FEDERAL LAND AND TO THE AIRSPACE OVER THAT LAND
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS
and
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
and
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION
of the
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 6, 2000, WASHINGTON, DC.
__________
Committee on Resources
Serial No. 106-89
Committee on Transportation
Serial No. 106-83
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
67-552 WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
james v. hansen, uTAH NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
ELTON GALLEGLY, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California Samoa
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
KEN CALVERT, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
RICHARD W. POMBO, California OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ADAM SMITH, Washington
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA MC CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada JAY INSLEE, Washington
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon TOM UDALL, New Mexico
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania MARK UDALL, Colorado
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
ELTON, GALLEGLY, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee Rico
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
RICHARD W. POMBO, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN,
Carolina Virgin Islands
CHRIS CANNON, Utah RON KIND, Wisconsin
RICK HILL, Montana JAY INSLEE, Washington
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana MARK UDALL, Colorado
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
Allen Freemyer, Counsel
Todd Hull, Professional Staff
Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Counsel
Gary Griffith, Professional Staff
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho, Chairman
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ADAM SMITH, Washington
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania RON KIND, Wisconsin
RICK HILL, Montana GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado TOM UDALL, New Mexico
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania MARK UDALL, Colorado
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
Doug Crandall, Staff Director
Anne Heissenbuttel, Legislative Staff
Jeff Petrich, Minority Chief Counsel
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BUD SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York ROBERT A. BORSKI, Pennsylvania
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI, Illinois
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois JAMES A. TRAFICANT, Jr., Ohio
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
STEPHEN HORN, California BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
BOB FRANKS, New Jersey JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JACK QUINN, New York Columbia
TILLIE K. FOWLER, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan PAT DANNER, Missouri
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SUE W. KELLY, New York JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
RAY LaHOOD, Illinois BOB FILNER, California
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire FRANK MASCARA, Pennsylvania
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
JACK METCALF, Washington JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana California
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
MERRILL COOK, Utah EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
JOHN COOKSEY, Lousiana MAX SANDLIN, Texas
JOHN R. THUNE, South Dakota ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
JERRY MORAN, Kansas LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
LEE TERRY, Nebraska TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania NICK LAMPSON, Texas
GARY G. MILLER, California JOHN ELIAS BALDACCI, Maine
JOHN E. SWEENEY, New York MARION BERRY, Arkansas
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina RONNIE SHOWS, Mississippi
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
STEVEN T. KUYKENDALL, California SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, Chairman
JOHN E. SWEENEY, New York, Vice WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI, Illinois
Chairman JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
DON YOUNG, Alaska CORRINE BROWN, Florida
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
JOHN L. MICA, Florida California
JACK QUINN, New York ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama JOHN ELIAS BALDACCI, Maine
RAY LaHOOD, Illinois MARION BERRY, Arkansas
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JACK METCALF, Washington Columbia
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
MERRILL COOK, Utah JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana NICK LAMPSON, Texas
JOHN R. THUNE, South Dakota NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey JAMES A. TRAFICANT, Jr., Ohio
JERRY MORAN, Kansas PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California PAT DANNER, Missouri
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania BOB FILNER, California
GARY G. MILLER, California MAX SANDLIN, Texas
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
STEVEN T. KUYKENDALL, California JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho (Ex Officio)
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BUD SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
(Ex Officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held April, 6, 2000...................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statements of Witnesses:
Alexander, David, Forest Supervisor of the Payette National
Forest, Department of Agriculture.......................... 50
Prepared statement of.................................... 52
Barrett, Robert, Director, UDOT Aeronautical Operations...... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Boyer, Phil, President, Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association................................................ 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Durtschi, Steve, President, Utah Back Country Pilots
Association................................................ 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
Shea, Pat, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals
Management, Department of the Interior..................... 59
Prepared statement of.................................... 61
Welsh, Barton W., Aeronautics Administrator, Division of
Aeronautics, Idaho Transportation Department............... 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
JOINT HEARING ON: H.R. 3661, TO HELP ENSURE GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT
ACCESS TO FEDERAL LAND AND TO THE AIRSPACE OVER THAT LAND
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2000
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands,
Committee on Resources, joint with the
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health,
Committee on Resources, joint with the
Subcommittee on Aviation Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.,
Hon. James V. Hansen (chairman of the Subcommittee on National
Parks and Public Lands) presiding.
Mr. Hansen. The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public
Lands is the committee that I chair, and with me is the
gentleman from Tennessee who sits on this committee, but also
chairs the Committee on FAA, and we are grateful to be
together. We expect the Chairman from the Forests and Forest
Health will be with us and also the Chairman from Agriculture.
They have both indicated a willingness to be here in support of
this piece of legislation.
Today we will hear testimony on H.R. 3661. This is a bill I
introduced, which ensures general aviation access to back
country airstrips by establishing a nationwide policy for
governing airstrips on Federal land and assuring that they
cannot be closed until a public process has been completed and
approval given by the FAA and State Aviation Boards.
Without question, back country airstrips serve the public
in a variety of beneficial ways. One of these is the role they
play in public safety. Pilots across the country feel more at
ease and breathe easier knowing that these airstrips are out
there in case of an emergency. Furthermore, back country
airstrips are also used in search and rescue activities and
firefighting efforts, as well as provide areas for disabled
aircraft to land. These airstrips also have general aviation
purposes which allow those who otherwise would be physically
unable to enjoy and recreate on our vast public lands.
Currently, many of our back country airstrips are being
closed or becoming unserviceable. This is mainly due to the
unilateral action of Federal agencies. H.R. 3661 would change
this by requiring the Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Agriculture to consult with the FAA, to adopt a
binding nationwide policy to govern aviation on Federal lands.
This bill contains provisions to prevent action or inaction
that would close or leave an airstrip unserviceable without
giving notice to the Federal Register, to the FAA, and to the
public.
I want to add that there seems to be some concern over who
is to maintain the strips. The Federal agencies think that this
maintenance would add a significant burden on them. However,
the bill specifies that the Interior and Agriculture
Departments only must consult with the State Board of Aviation
and other interested parties to ensure landing strips are
maintained. Many of the pilot associations that I have talked
to made it clear they will volunteer to maintain and make small
necessary improvements to these back country airstrips. I do,
and the Federal Government should also, thank them for this
volunteer offer and the effort that they have put forth.
Before we begin the hearing, I need to say one more thing,
and I want to be very clear. The committee rules calls for all
testimony, including that of the Administration, to be
delivered 48 hours in advance of a hearing, not 48 minutes.
This situation is getting the Administration's testimony at the
last minute is simply intolerable, and I have already canceled
a number of hearings because of this tardiness, and that is the
rule of the House. And therefore, I will take this first panel,
rather than the Administration, and bring them on second.
Having said that, I would like to turn to the gentleman
from Tennessee, the Chairman of the FAA Subcommittee, and then
I will turn to the gentlelady from Idaho for their opening
comments, and then Mr. Sweeney.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.001
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Chairman Hansen. It is a
great honor and privilege for me, as the Chairman of the
Aviation Subcommittee of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, to participate with you and my good friend, Ms.
Chenoweth-Hage, in this hearing today. I am fortunate to have
the opportunity to serve on both the Resources Committee and as
Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee. This gives me an
opportunity to see this issue from several different
perspectives.
This is not the first time that our two committees,
Chairman Hansen, have held a joint hearing. In November 1997,
Chairman Hansen and I conducted a joint hearing in St. George,
Utah, on the issue of the National Park Overflights,
particularly, flights over the Grand Canyon. That hearing led
to the introduction of the National Parks Air Management Act,
which was passed by the House and was put in our FAA
Reauthorization Bill, which the President signed into law
yesterday.
On the Aviation Subcommittee, we have been concerned about
general aviation airports for several years. In 1998, we asked
the General Accounting Office to look into what the FAA was
doing to preserve the general aviation access, and some people
felt that they were not doing nearly enough at that time. As a
result, we held a hearing last June on the need to preserve
general aviation airports. We learned at that hearing that
general aviation airports have been closing over the last 25
years at a disturbing rate of one a week. It is hard to
imagine, but that is what the statistics show, that over the
last 25 years, general aviation airports have been closing at
the rate of one a week.
In the recently passed Air 21 legislation, we included a
section requiring the FAA to give pilots advanced notice before
airports are allowed to close down or to sell off their land.
This will give airport users an opportunity to comment before
they lose such a valuable resource. Of course, Air 21 applies
only to airports owned and operated by state or local agencies.
It does not cover airstrips that are owned by the Federal
Government and located on Federal land.
The General Aviation Access Act, which Chairman Hansen
introduced, and which I co-sponsored, is basically designed to
do for Federal airstrips what Air 21 does for state and local
airfields. It would give pilots and other users an opportunity
to be heard before the landing site is closed or taken away
from them. And I should emphasize that. This does not prohibit
action being taken by a Federal agency, it simply gives pilots
and other users an opportunity to be heard and to have some
input before such action can be taken.
These landing strips serve several important functions.
They can be used as a base of operations for search and rescue
missions, firefighting, and aerial landing. More important,
they can provide a safe landing site for pilots in times of
trouble. I am aware that the Interior Department and the FAA
may have some concerns about this bill. I am certainly willing
to hear them out and support any modifications to the
legislation and would approve it.
And I want to thank Chairman Hansen for taking the
initiative on this issue and for allowing the Aviation
Subcommittee to participate, and say that Chairman Hansen may
not be the most famous Member of Congress, although he is well
known. But I will tell you that I, personally, do not believe I
know of any member of the House of Representatives who is more
highly respected than my good friend, Chairman Hansen, and it
is a pleasure to follow your lead on this and many other
things. And I thank you very much for allowing me to be here
today.
Mr. Hansen. Well, I thank you for those kinds words. We
appreciate your testimony. We will turn to the gentlelady from
Idaho, the Chairman of the Committee on Forests and Forest
Health.
Ms. Chenoweth-Hage. I want to thank the Chairman, and I
also agree with Mr. Duncan. I think probably Mr. Hansen is one
of the more famous members of the House. I love to embarrass
him.
But I do want to say that ensuring access to our back
country airstrips is of real extreme importance to me. Two
years ago, I held an oversight hearing on the Forest Service
management of back country airstrips; primarily, those in and
around the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Area in
Idaho. The Frank Church Wilderness Area was and is a good case
study on the back country airstrip issue that we are addressing
today.
When the Frank Church Wilderness Area was created, Congress
included language in the legislation that required the Forest
Service to keep open and maintain the airstrips within the
wilderness. To quote Senator Frank Church, ``Because of the
vastness of the River of No Return area, without continued
access by air, very few people could see and enjoy the remote
and less accessible parts of the region.''
Unfortunately, a few years ago, the Forest Service began
moving in a direction contrary to this legislation and the
intent of Congress, which was and is to maintain the
established uses of airstrips. Various Forest Service proposals
would have led to a decrease in the maintenance of the
airstrips, and as a result, a reduction in the total number of
functioning airstrips. Since the hearing, I have been told that
the Forest Service has proceeded with a more heightened
sensitivity concerning the intent of Congress. And although a
number of issues still remain unresolved, I really appreciate
Congress Hansen's bill, H.R. 3661, which will help to further
ensure that the back country airstrips in the Frank Church
Wilderness and across the country will remain open and
functioning.
This issue is such an important one to me, as so many in
the west, recreationalists, pilots, disabled people, search and
rescue teams, firefighters, and others. Two days ago, I held a
hearing on the effects of new Forest Service rulemaking and
policies on recreation in the National Forest. From mountain
bikers, horsemen, snowmobilers, alike, we heard the same story.
This Administration is locking the public out of our public
lands. Hopefully, efforts such as Mr. Hansen's will help keep
back country airstrips from just being another pod in the
Administration's plans to lock up the Federal lands.
Mr. Chairman, I want to welcome Mr. Dave Alexander. I am
very pleased that he is here and part of the witnesses. In
checking his testimony which we just got in, I notice that Mr.
Alexander constantly referred to the need to allow managers the
flexibility to make decisions locally, and I agree with this
very strongly. The problem is, as we have recently uncovered,
is that this Administration is already making local decisions
from Washington, DC. with the guidance and assistance of
national environmental groups.
Now, I would prefer not to move legislation that would give
more authority on the national level, and leave it on the local
level. But if this is the only way to keep the Administration
from shutting off access to Federal lands, then I must support
this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. I thank the Chairlady from Idaho. The gentleman
from Puerto Rico.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like
to begin by welcoming our colleagues from the Forest and
Aviation Subcommittees, and we look forward to the protectives
regarding the legislation that we are going to consider today.
The only matter before us today is this legislation introduced
by Chairman Hansen, H.R. 3661. As we understand it, the intent
of the legislation is to ensure access for private planes for
back country areas owned and managed by the National Parks
Service, Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management.
The legislation attempts to accomplish this by passing
these Federal land management agencies with undertaking
maintenance on all airstrips located on Federal lands. In
addition, the bill prohibits these agencies from taking steps
to close an airstrip without FAA and state approval, as well as
the 90-day notice and comment period. Presently, the bill
prohibits these agencies from allowing these airstrips to
become unserviceable through inaction or neglect.
And finally, the bill contemplates development of a
national policy which would govern not just airstrips, but all
general aviation issues regarding public lands. While we surely
agree that access to back country areas is vital, the need for
this specific measure is unclear. We are unaware of any
evidence of appropriate access to Federal lands as being denied
to private pilots, nor are we aware of any evidence that the
search and rescue, firefighting, or other emergency services
are being hampered by current practices.
Furthermore, we have serious concerns regarding the
implementation of this legislation. No inventory of landing
strips on Federal land exists. This legislation does not define
the term, the scope of the bill is difficult to modify. In
addition, the bill provides no clear standards for maintenance
to guide the agencies in their new role. Will they be required
to keep these strips to FAA standards or does some lesser
standard exist?
It is also unclear how the agencies might comply with the
bill's prohibition of inaction or neglect. For example, how
could an agency provide 90 days notice on a common field before
failing to act? Finally, it is unclear how this legislation,
including the new national policy of mandates, would match with
existing policies governing land management and related general
aviation issues.
I will look forward to the testimony of our witnesses
today, and it is our hope that their insight might clear up
some of the concerns that we have expressed.
Mr. Hansen. I thank the gentleman for his comment. Is there
any member of the three committees that are involved in this
particular piece of legislation that have an opening comment or
a burning in your bosom, you have just got to get it out? If
not, why do not we go ahead with this hearing.
Our panel that we have with us, our first panel, Mr. Robert
Barrett, Director of UDOT, Utah Department of Transportation
Aeronautical Operations; Mr. Barton W. Welsh, Aeronautics
Administrator, Division of Aeronautics, Idaho Transportation
Department; Mr. Phil Boyer, President of the Aircraft Owners
and Pilots Association--and incidentally, Mr. Boyer was the
driving force of the tort liability issue which I think has
kind of salvaged things like general aviation--and my good
friend and neighbor, Mr. Steve Durtschi, President of the Utah
Back Country Pilots Association, which is a good group of
individuals who have done an outstanding job for aviation in
the State of Utah.
Mr. Barrett, we will start with you, sir.
STATEMENTS OF ROBERT BARRETT, DIRECTOR, UDOT AERONAUTICAL
OPERATIONS; ACCOMPANIED BY BARTON W. WELSH, AERONAUTICS
ADMINISTRATOR, DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS, IDAHO TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENT; PHIL BOYER, PRESIDENT, AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS
ASSOCIATION; STEVE DURTSCHI, PRESIDENT, UTAH BACK COUNTRY
PILOTS ASSOCIATION
STATEMENT OF ROBERT BARRETT
Mr. Barrett. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
my name is Robert Barrett. I am the Director of the Utah
Division of Aeronautics, a division of the Utah Department of
Transportation. I have come to testify before this subcommittee
and to present a printed statement for inclusion in the
congressional record in behalf of H.R. 3661, the General
Aviation Access Act.
My division administers all Federal and state funding for
public-use airports in Utah. We are responsible for all
aviation-based transportation issues. In addition, we operate
three airplanes to provide air transportation to state
government officials and employees who travel on the state's
business. We frequently take our passengers over the most
spectacular scenery that exists anywhere in this great country
of ours and, in fact, in the entire world.
The frequent oohs and aahs of our passengers remind us of
the beauty and drive home to us how truly fortunate we are to
fly in such an area. John Gillespie Magee's beloved poem
entitled, High Flight, comes to mind, for there is no other
place in my experience where one can so readily reach out and
``touch the face of God.''
The General Aviation Access Act is very important to all
who fly over Utah and other western states where vast areas are
designated as mountainous terrain, where airports are few and
population is sparse. In Utah, the uranium boom days of the
1950's and 1960's left their mark in numerous landing strips
bladed out in the canyons and river bottoms and on remote mesa
tops which were there to resupply prospectors. These are
unimproved dirt strips, 1,000 to 2,000 feet long, with no
associated roads, no instrument approaches, no runway lights,
no services, no based airplanes and no people.
On the Utah Aeronautical Charts, which I have provided as
Exhibit 1, you will find many of these strips designated by a
small circle or by an R with a circle around it. These
airstrips are very important. They represent a safe haven to a
pilot faced with a sudden engine failure in a single engine
aircraft or an emergency that requires getting the airplane on
the ground right now. Our last revision to the State
Aeronautical Chart and the airport directory on the reverse
side began to identify some of these landing strips so the
pilots will have enough information to land safely in
emergencies. Such emergencies do not happen often, but when
they do, the pilot needs a place to get down. These back
country strips serve an essential safety role as emergency
landing areas.
These strips serve a recreational purpose as well. You will
hear others testify how these back country strips make
accessible to the disabled and others the unparalleled beauties
of the remote wilderness that I described.
I will now address two specific issues that have been
raised by environmental interest groups opposed to passage of
H.R. 3661. First, the allegation has been made that these
landing strips would become the regular destinations of the
aircraft of the drug cartels and their deadly cargo. Not so.
These landing strips so welcome to a pilot in distress are not
suitable for the largely multi-engine and turboprop aircraft
which are the preference of drug runners. While they have shown
a penchant for throwing away an expensive aircraft on a one-way
trip, they have not extended this to throwing away pilots.
Taking a twin-engine turboprop into a 1,200 foot sand and
sagebrush runway in a box canyon at night would be a recipe for
a serious crash landing at best, and more likely, a sure
fatality for all aboard. And since most of these strips are
many miles from the nearest road, transporting any significant
volume of drugs would be difficult.
Secondly, those opposed to any use of these landing strips
have alleged that each would become a busy weekend destination
for hordes of private pilots who would turn the wilderness into
vast public campgrounds. This is not going to happen. These
strips will never be the destination of more than a handful of
skilled and experienced pilots who own aircraft designed and
built to fly into unimproved strips and rough terrain. The
average recreational flyer has neither the training nor the
skill, nor access to the right aircraft, to fly into these
strips. Each strip would likely see no more than one or two
aircraft in any given week.
Now, the actions that my division would propose if H.R.
3661 becomes law: First, I would pledge to work with the BLM
and the Forest Service, and with the FAA, the Utah Back Country
Pilots Association, and various environmental interest groups,
and other potential users to decide which back country strips
are essential to the safety of general aviation and other
appropriate recreation and utilitarian needs. We would develop
a plan to release those that are not needed and allow them to
be returned to natural wilderness.
No use of Federal AIP funds nor state appropriated airport
construction and maintenance funds would be used for the
restoration or preservation of back country airstrips. We would
enlist the aid of the back country pilots and other private
citizen groups to adopt an airstrip and to take responsibility
for the restoration and upkeep of those which are designated
for preservation.
I would conclude by saying that H.R. 3661 is a good bill
and that its passage would provide long-term benefits to our
citizens and visitors from other countries. The cost and
detrimental effects of its passage would be so small as to be
immeasurable. I recommend to the subcommittee its favorable
recommendation to the House and its strong support for passage
by the Senate and the President.
I thank you for the opportunity you have given me to come
and speak.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Barrett follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.006
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Mr. Welsh, we will turn
to you, sir. If you would pull that mike up close to you, we
would appreciate it.
STATEMENT OF BARTON W. WELSH
Mr. Welsh. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you so
much for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 3661, the bill to
help ensure general aviation aircraft access to Federal lands
and the airspace over that land.
The State of Idaho has a number of state and federally
owned aircraft landing strips. Idaho is known nationwide for
its air access to wilderness and primitive areas. Each of these
strips is considered by us to be an irreplaceable state and
national treasure. The reality today is that if any of these
strips were lost, they could not be replaced because of the
language of existing wilderness legislation.
When the Frank Church Wilderness was established in Idaho,
it incorporated a provision to provide for the continued
operation of all existing landing strips. The provision states
that existing landing strips may not be closed permanently or
rendered unserviceable without the written consent of the State
of Idaho. Over the years, this stipulation has proved a very
satisfactory working relationship between the personnel from
the Forest Service and incorporated their staff with the
Division of Aeronautics and other interested parties to work
out solutions that would have been very difficult.
I would like to share two of these with you today. One is a
landing strip known as Wilson Bar. This strip is on the Salmon
River and has been a landing strip for many years. It was
originally built by a miner some time in the late 1930's or
early 1940's. The first airplane to ever land there landed in a
meadow as a true emergency when the aircraft had engine
difficulties. Realizing the value of this, the owner of the
mining claim improved the strip and made it available to other
pilots to conduct business with him and access that particular
area. There was at the time no other airstrip along that
portion of the river.
Over time the strip became somewhat overgrown with trees
and shrubbery and was being used less and less. In 1994, the
local pilots in Idaho began to use the landing strip for
recreational purposes for access to that area and wished to
improve it for potential emergency. Some Forest Service
representatives felt that since the airport had seen infrequent
use for many years, it might be best left closed. Because of
the language in the Frank Church Wilderness Act, the situation
was looked at with legal interpretations and it was felt that
the airport was protected by the Act and should remain open to
all aircraft operations.
With that, there was a cooperative effort between the
Forest Service and the local pilots to remove the necessary
trees, put the airstrip back into a usable condition. The
airstrip is open today and is used by a number of people, and
is an example of my opinion of the type of cooperation that
this Act brought about.
The second example is a landing strip on Big Creek, known
as Cabin Creek airstrip. This strip was badly damaged by a
flood in 1997. A small tributary known as Cow Creek, just above
the airstrip, overran its bank in the spring runoff and the
water traveled virtually the length of the dirt strip, doing a
large amount of damage. Again, the Forest Service and the local
pilots association, along with the Idaho Aviation Division, met
to deal with the situation. This was unique in that it was
wilderness where there was an agreement no mechanized equipment
may be used. Although the Act does not allow for mechanized
equipment, it does allow for mechanized equipment to be used in
extreme situations.
It was felt that bringing tractors and bulldozers in the
area might be viewed by some individuals as compromising the
wilderness values. It was agreed the airstrip should be
repaired with mules and drawbars. The financial needs were
addressed by the Forest Service and the project did take place
and the strip is now open.
I point these two examples as opportunities that without
restriction to the Act, these two strips would surely have been
lost forever. The language in H.R. 3661 is virtually the same
as we have found successful in the Frank Church Act, protecting
all landing strips in the wilderness area.
I would be remiss if I did not mention one particular
person that works for the Forest Service, who was mentioned
already today, Mr. Dave Alexander, the Forest Supervisor for
the Payette National Forest. Mr. Alexander has consistently
taken a cooperative position where areas that we work together.
We have seen the value of aviation and realize the importance
of the back country strips. These strips allow people to have
access to areas that would not be otherwise possible. The
aircraft do not damage in any way the terrain, they do not
wander off the given path in the woods, there is no damage to
the process of getting there. They do not break down the trails
and cut across small corners to cause erosion. The aircraft
simply go to one place. It is an essential part of the
Wilderness Act.
Aircraft for the State of Idaho are a very important
economic consideration. We have a number of air taxis that
provide access for recreation and administrative purposes.
Examples of people accessing the wilderness by air are hunters,
fishermen, rafters, forest service, law enforcement. I would
like to repeat again that all back country wilderness strips in
Idaho or any other state in the Nation are an irreplaceable
asset, that it would be irresponsible for us not to protect
them. This Act does exactly that.
I would strongly support your supporting this act and I
would be happy and delighted to any questions the committee
might have. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Welsh follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.010
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Welsh. Mr. Boyer.
STATEMENT OF PHIL BOYER
Mr. Boyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, I
represent the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, almost
360,000 of our nation's pilots and about 110,000 owners of
general aviation airplanes who use these particular strips for
both recreation and/or business use. Primarily, our members,
well trained, as you heard earlier, fly in the western states
at many of these airports. But as a national organization, I
would like to describe just a bit the fact that it is not
isolated to just the states represented at this table. There
are airport closures or airports under threat of closure in the
back country area in states like Oregon, California. And in my
written testimony, I have given you a list of those airports
that we are currently trying to save.
At the same time, let me take you to the 49th state, up in
Alaska, where Mt. McKinley Airport, a critical airport in terms
of safety, in terms of a single-engine plane losing an engine,
has been under threat of attack for about the last two to 3
years. Though every case is different, we at AOPA feel that
proposals to restrict aviation access to federally managed
lands are generally inappropriate.
General aviation pilots, my members, do not seek to hinder
the experience of anyone taking advantage of the recreational
opportunities in these parks, in these forests, or these
wilderness areas. As a matter of fact, most GA pilots fly over
or land in these areas because they share this same
appreciation for the environment. As part of our members'
efforts to preserve the experience of ground visitors, we have
encouraged and we know that our members successfully use a
voluntary overflight minimum of 2,000 feet whenever going over
any of these federally or state-managed lands.
General aviation contributes positively to the recreational
experience. You know, our pilots do not leave behind clutter,
clogged roads, or physical damage at the area. As a matter of
fact, you will hear that pilots actually help to improve these
areas. And compared to other sources of noise and disturbance
that visitors may experience in national parks, forests, and
wilderness area, aviation brings very little noise. But we do
need these strips also for emergency use as you have already
heard.
We also do not create the noise that recreational vehicles,
buses, motorcycles and others use. If I could take just a
moment and give you a little home video that I shot when I was
in one of our national parks just last September. Enjoy the
serenity, the beauty of Yellowstone National Park, for
instance. By the way, I drove. And looking at scenes like this,
once again, airplanes flying 2,000 feet or more above the
airport not being heard; but suddenly, in the parking lot, just
steps away from that scene I was showing you--I could not help
but say, ``and they worry about airplane noise over national
parks.'' At any rate, aviation provides those physically
unable, as you heard, to enjoy the pleasures of our national
parks.
You know, as with any restrictions, limits on access by
aircraft should be justified by hard data, such as a record of
frequent complaints by wilderness users, not simply the
perceptions of a few activists. I have testified in Chairman
Duncan's committee about many calls that are received at our
domestic, regular urban airports. Most of these calls boil down
to three or four people who are complaining, even though they
may log 100 or so calls each. Studies, and they are in my
written testimony, have shown that airplanes do not impair the
national park visitors, affect the quality of their experience.
And once again, back country airports are so vital for the
emergency use of airplanes. There are about 195,000 active
civil aviation airplanes in the U.S.; 135,000 fly with a single
engine. Now, if the single engine fails, those of us who are
pilots all know, we become a glider pilot. And generally, in
states like this, or anywhere in the eastern part of the
country, in much of the country, we can glide the landing in a
field or find an airstrip nearby. But that is not the case, as
a matter of fact, when you are over states represented here
like Idaho and Utah, or some of the other states where these
back country airports exist.
I would like to demonstrate for you a trip that I took to
Idaho, as a matter of fact, just a few years ago; a wonderful
trip in which we were going to use a single-engine airplane to
fly around in this kind of rugged terrain. I think it might be
good for the committee to also look at the kind of airstrip we
are talking about here. This is not one with a huge terminal,
with large facilities, with parking facilities, et cetera. This
is truly an approach to Thomas Creek, one of the back country
airstrips we are talking about.
Well, when we landed, we suddenly discovered that a group
of people down at the far end of that runway were going to need
our help. Why? Because one of these charter aircraft that we
described earlier, that carries passengers for hire, lost its
engine over that rugged terrain with passengers on board. Just
about an hour before our arrival, it had glided to a safe
landing--wonderful pilot skills, I might say--and actually went
off the road that abuts to that small airport. And this is a
picture of us pushing that airplane out. All the passengers,
the pilot, and everyone walked away from that accident. What
would have happened had that back country airport not been
there to use when this plane had actually one of its cylinders
go through the side of the engine?
I would like you to refer to my written testimony for the
remainder, but I would like to say that we encourage support of
this general aviation access bill. You have correctly
identified that there is an agency in this country that is
responsible for our airspace, that is the Federal Aviation
Administration. This bill does not take away from their
authority over airspace, but it also involves local community,
states, to participate in the process, and we support that in a
big way. We believe this is a reasonable approach to a problem
that continues to exist with our nation's back country
airports.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Boyer follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.016
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Boyer. We have a lot of folks
standing. We are not going to use this bottom tier. If you want
to come up and sit in it, you are welcome to do it. If you do
not find that too intimidating, come on up.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. These are students
from Calvin Coolidge High School in the District of Columbia,
here to learn about the Congress of the United States.
Mr. Hansen. Well, I am glad they could be with us today,
Ms. Norton, and we are happy to have them join us.
Our last witness on this panel is Mr. Steve Durtschi from
Centerville, Utah, an adjoining town of my town of Farmington.
Mr. Durtschi, it is a pleasure to see you again, sir, and we
will turn the time to you.
STATEMENT OF STEVE DURTSCHI
Mr. Durtschi. Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to
address this committee. My name is Steve Durtschi. I work as a
Process Engineer on solid rocket propellants for a defense
contractor in Salt Lake City. I am also a commercial and
instrument-rated pilot.
I am here today representing the Utah Back Country Pilots
Association. The UBCP has a membership of 325 pilots and
enthusiasts in Utah and surrounding states. Our mission
statement is to firstly promote air safety. We also serve as a
volunteer group in maintaining and enhancing the safety at more
remote airports. Many of the thoughts which I present here
today are those suggested as I canvassed our group in preparing
this testimony.
I wish I could convey in just a few minutes, the time
allotted to me, the passion for and enjoyment my family and I
have realized over the years in being able to access some of
the scenic beauty of the west in our airplane. If we won a trip
to Disneyland today, we would most certainly trade it for one
night in our tent under the wing after burnt hamburger and
semi-raw potatoes cooked in tin foil. We have been most
fortunate in being able to roll our wheels from manicured grass
strips in the mountains to dusty runways in red rock canyons.
Idaho has some two dozen of these landing strips in
wilderness areas alone. The Frank Church River of No Return and
the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness areas both contain public
landing strips open to private airplanes. Many of these are
maintained in safe operating condition by public volunteers.
This area of Idaho has become a show place for the nation,
demonstrating how some of the most sensitive lands in the west
can be managed in pristine condition for hundreds of
generations and yet still allow public access.
The deserts and canyon country of Utah also contain a
handful of airports that beckon the back country aviator. Our
Director of state Aeronautics, Mr. Barrett, has spoken of their
obvious value for search and rescue efforts and the peace of
mind the cross-country traveler feels as they quietly slide
under the wing during a long trip in otherwise very unfriendly
airplane terrain. To me and many other pilots, they are a
treasure; a resource to our state, and deserve defending.
Unfortunately, these landing strips are under attack. As an
example, many of my friends and I used the landing strip at
Taylor Flat on the Green River. There were no complaints
concerning its use. In 1997, a sign was posted at the entrance
to the strip that said, in part, ``Due to lack of interest and
a qualified applicant to maintain the strip, the Taylor Flat
Landing Strip is closed.'' Daggett County officials notified
the BLM they would immediately perform any required maintenance
on the landing strip and would maintain any required liability
insurance. The Utah pilots group supplied data to show there
was hardly a lack of interest in this strip and that it was
being used and had been used by many people.
The BLM conducted an Environmental Impact Statement and
found no significant impacts. During the public comment period,
to my knowledge, not one dissenting letter was registered with
the BLM, while dozens were sent desiring to keep the strip
open. The BLM supervisor denied all requests to use the
airfield, citing his desire to not sacrifice five acres os sage
brush. A grader was dispatched and several deep gouges cut,
rendering the strip useless.
With slight variation, the story has been the same at other
Utah locations. With no advance notice, the BLM used heavy
equipment to drag logs across the landing field at Dolores
Point. The Mexican Mountain Landing Strip, now inside the
Mexican Mountain Wilderness Study Area, has been continuously
used by pilots since it was constructed in 1960. The U.S.
Department of Interior's own pamphlet, entitled, Protecting
Your Wilderness Study Areas, says that any activities conducted
prior to the passage of the Federal land Policy Management Act
of 1976 are grandfathered and allowed to continue. But the BLM
has indicated they will cite any pilot now using the landing
strip. I should mention, I have no axe to grind with the BLM. I
believe they are responding to a few vocal environmentalist
groups, and I emphasize that point.
Attacks on Utah landing strips come from other camps. In
1999, after resolving every potential issue over a period of
almost 2 years, the BLM Environmental Impact Statements found
no significant impact and issued a right of way lease for the
landing strip at Mineral Canyon. Extremist groups immediately
filed lawsuits, which persist from every legal angle to this
day, even though the airport is not on what even they consider
to be lands with wilderness character. I could cite similar
attacks on airport closures in California and Idaho.
I mentioned earlier my passion for flight and what a great
privilege it is to combine this with my love of the outdoors.
Aviation has been a source of national pride for nearly a
century. Aviation has been the currency with which we purchased
our technological dominance. My heroes are Jimmy Dolittle, Neil
Armstrong and Roscoe Turner. My love for aviation is interwoven
with the basic desire all share to be in open space. The
freedom to move about unencumbered is irresistible, and I
treasure it equally. I recently read that after a 10-year
review, a man in Shanghai, the People's Republic of China, was
issued a private pilot's license. This brings the total private
pilots in China to 41. It is little wonder there is a
difference between our two countries.
I consider the airplane to be well-suited to visit
sensitive lands. Consider that it does not leave a rutted
landscape, nor does it graze its way from place to place. Only
footprints leave the airfield. A few years ago, we were camped
at Chamberlain Basin near the Salmon River in Idaho. The early
morning silence was broken by a Cessna 206, followed by
another, and then another. As I watched curiously, about 12
young people were unloaded and helped into wheelchairs. For
perhaps an hour, they had their own wilderness experience, some
blowing into tubes to maneuver their chairs on the runway.
These youngsters could have visited this wilderness in no other
way. I later learned the airplanes were flown by volunteers.
H.R. 3661 will preserve this privilege to visit the back
country. We are bound as pilots by Federal Air Regulations any
time we operate an airplane at these fields. Why not give these
airports the Federal protection they deserve?
A key ingredient to this bill is the public involvement it
fosters. As a recently initiated couple to the political
process, my wife and I are proud to represent our neighbors at
the county convention in April. Our party platform reads in
part, ``We believe that citizens' needs are best met through
private initiative and volunteerism.''
The Utah Back Country Pilots could not agree more. We do
not believe in entitlements. As pilots who love the outdoors,
the government does not owe us a thing. We simply ask that they
mandate some guidelines and then politely step aside. Many
groups such as ours ask only for the opportunity to roll up
their sleeves, put their talents and wallets where their hearts
are. This bill will allow just that. The public is at the ready
to adopt these landing strips and maintain them in safe
operating condition. The State of Idaho has a program similar
to this that has operated for years.
The Utah Back Country Pilots Association supports H.R.
3661. As I have shown, the laws governing these landing strips
at present are inadequate and open to individual interpretation
by many agencies. This bill will bring these strips all under
one management team. It is a rational and sensible way to
manage airports on public lands. I sincerely hope this
committee will thoughtfully consider this matter and expedite
signing it into law. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Durtschi follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.019
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Durtschi. Questions for this
panel, the Chairman of the Aviation Committee, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me just
first ask the panel, one of government witnesses later implies
or testifies that a great deal of confusion, almost near chaos,
will result because the words, landing strip, or what the
landing strip is, is not defined in this bill. He spends a
great deal of time in his testimony concerning that. Although I
know the Park Service currently uses the words, landing sites,
are in its management policy, and the aircraft landing strips
in its regulations.
Do any of you feel there is uncertainty or confusion about
what we are talking about here or what the words, landing
strip, means in this legislation?
Mr. Barrett. Mr. Duncan, there certainly is no confusion
among pilots as to what it means. Those pilots who would use
the back country strips, either for emergencies or for
recreation, have no doubt in their minds what is implied by the
words, landing strip. They are unimproved and there are no
services available. There are usually no roads available, and
it is a safe place to put their plane down in an emergency.
Mr. Duncan. I guess I would not have been as concerned
about that if there was not so much of his testimony spent on
that point. Mr. Durtschi, do you think there is any confusion?
Mr. Durtschi. No, not at all. In fact, our pilots group
over the last 3 years has inventoried what we consider to be
all of the landing strips in Utah. We have data on these, we
have photographs, we have mapped them and charted them,
measured their length, and described their condition. I believe
they are all inventoried. I think one of the key ingredients of
the bill will be it involves the public in deciding which ones
now do we manage, which ones do we save.
Mr. Duncan. I might suggest, if you have not done so, that
you provide that to the government agencies involved. But let
me ask you this, the witness from the Forest Service also will
testify later that there has been a very active--there is a
formal decision process with full public involvement when
closing airstrips. Has there been and do your pilots feel there
has been adequate public involvement in these decisions?
Mr. Durtschi. No, not at all. As I mentioned, the logs were
drug with heavy equipment at the Dolores Point Strip with
absolutely no notice, no public involvement whatsoever.
Mr. Duncan. You say there is no public involvement
whatsoever?
Mr. Durtschi. Not on that particular case. There was an EIS
and a full-blown Environmental Impact Statement at the Taylor
Landing Strip. That EIS found no significant impact and then
the supervisor at the BLM office mandated this strip was closed
with no other rational other than he did not want to sacrifice
the sage brush, so that there was some public involvement
there.
Mr. Duncan. Well, let me ask the panel this. The
Administration tells us that these landing strips are primarily
intended for the agency's use and not for the public's use. If
an agency no longer needs these strips, do you think it is fair
to ask them to pay to maintain them or does anyone on the panel
feel that it would be fair to ask the general aviation pilot
community or the state aviation agencies involved to pay fees
or some of the cost to help the government defray the cost of
upkeep on these strips? What do you say in that regard, Mr.
Boyer?
Mr. Boyer. Well, Mr. Chairman, the pilots are already, as
you have heard, doing a lot to maintain these strips. I think
we should, based on the videotaped example, remind everyone
that the maintenance of these strips is certainly not like the
maintenance of normal concrete/asphalt runways. Getting these
ready at the beginning of the season, keeping them clean is
just an ongoing effort that pilots do when they use them, and
then perhaps a shut down at the beginning of the fall or winter
season is all that is required on these airports. And in many
cases, volunteer organizations are doing it now.
In addition, I think that with the passage of this Act, a
lot more attention could be brought to assisting in that
manner. In terms of any fees to use these airports, the same
way that when we drove to Yellowstone, we paid a fairly
substantial fee to enter the park, probably could be done, and
there are those of us, as you have heard, with the passion to
use them. But the efficiency of collecting such fees probably
would not amount to the few aircraft that are going to use
them, and we would have another government program collecting
money, and it would cost more to collect it. But there are a
lot of local solutions to the maintenance problem that you
bring up.
And then in terms of our national transportation system,
where these airports do provide--and I would cite Mt. McKinley
as a good example, a safe harbor for an airplane that is in
trouble--there may be a way to look at the use of AIP funding
in terms of keeping a certain number of these up and our
association would lobby heavily in that regard.
Mr. Duncan. My time is up, but let me just--I may have
missed this, but let me very quickly ask you. Mr. Boyer
mentioned that California and other states are involved in this
also in addition to Utah, Idaho and several others. Maybe I
missed this, but did somebody say how many back country
airstrips we are talking about in total? Does anybody know the
exact number?
Mr. Welsh. Mr. Chairman, I can answer your question as no,
I do not believe we do. But in Idaho, we have some fifty
different strips, and they arrange in a variety of skilled and
aircraft needed to get into some of them and so forth, but the
maintenance is in few cases not a problem. We typically
cooperate with the Forest Service and set up a work party on a
particular weekend. And they have their staff there that can
direct and lead, and we can get, easily, volunteer pilots to
come in and do the physical labor. That is a cooperative system
that has been in place for years, and years, and years, working
very well.
As Mr. Boyer points out, these are not strips that need to
be asphalted every 2 years or something, and the users of them
all have the best interest of the airstrip in mind. And so when
I go in with my aircraft into one of these strips, I generally
walk the strip, and look for rocks, and if there are little
bushes or something that are in the way, and every other pilot
does the same thing. So these are strips that periodically do
need major maintenance, and we schedule that kind of work. We
do it, but it is not something that is an ongoing financial
crisis.
Mr. Duncan. Well, that is a good system. I wish we had more
cooperation between the private sector and government agencies
throughout the Federal Government. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Boswell.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I suppose in
fairness, I should tell you that maybe I should be sitting at
the other table, because I associate myself with the remarks
and so on. I confess I am an airplane owner/operator and a
member of the AOPA. But I just want to emphasize some points.
We spend a lot of money, those of us that fly and people we
fly with. At least, I feel like we do every time I pull up to
the gas pump, and the taxes are involved, and we are willing to
do that for the maintenance of things of this nature. I do not
know if any of you have ever been a small aircraft flying
situation. We all understand if the engine fails, you have got
to get on the ground. They are going to become gliders, as was
already said. But you know, you get a kind of a funny feeling
when you have got a little rough engine, too.
And one thing that we train pilots from the beginning is
you are always conscious of where you go in case you have a
problem. And if you do not have access to these strips, and we
all understand what the strips are in areas like this. It would
be taking a lot away in the sense of safety and just good old
common sense, it seems to me. So I associate myself with the
remarks of our panel and would hope that we would begin using a
liberal application of common sense here, and I think we will
do the right thing.
Mr. Hansen. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. The
gentleman from Iowa, Mr, Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
panel's comments, too, and I appreciate the fact that these
back country strips are there for safety purposes as much as
anything. And when I took my flying lessons, I knew that when
you flew across Idaho, you, generally, were not flying across
very much flat ground. And so I knew where every piece of flat
land was plus everyone of these back country airstrips, and it
provided a great deal of satisfaction to me to know that they
were there.
I guess the one question I would have is that you mentioned
that sometimes the airline pilot association or groups, these
people will take over the maintenance of some of these
airports. Who takes over in that situation, who is responsible
for the liability if something were to happen, if an accident
or something were to happen in that case? Would it be the
Federal Government whose land this is on or the private people
who have taken over the maintenance of them, or the state, or
who? I will ask that of anyone who would like to answer.
Mr. Welsh. Mr. Simpson, I am not sure I have the answer to
it either. I know the State of Idaho, as you know, we own 30
airports, and I do not think there is any way to get out of the
liability when you are the owner. Although, we do not have
lawsuits. It just does not happen. Now, I suppose it could
happen. I think only of one incident where we had an aircraft
damaged that the owner felt that it was our fault. We had a
chuckhole in the area and his airplane fell in that chuckhole
and damaged it rather substantially. Fortunately, he was
taxiing, he was not landing or taking off. We agreed with him
and we paid for it. But it is simply these--it does not seem to
be any kind of a groundswell effort to sue people over back
country airstrips.
Mr. Simpson. Would it be true to say that most of the
people who fly into these back country airstrips realize that
sometimes these are not going to be in the greatest of shape
and, therefore, they take precautions to make sure when they
have been maintained and so forth?
Mr. Welsh. I think that is absolutely right. We do run as a
state activity, training programs for people, on how to fly
safely in the back country. We encourage anyone to come back in
there to go through those training programs. The records that
we have kept is that we have an outstanding safety record of
those people that have done that. The unfortunate part is that
people who have some difficulties back there, tend to be people
coming from other states, have not had the training, and will
get into difficulties.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Boyer.
Mr. Boyer. Well, I was going to mention that I was not
flying the plane that I had in that videotape, because I am not
trained for that, and it is a unique experience, as you well
know, going into some of these airports. As a pilot of almost
5,000 hours, I will hold my breath on that approach to that
airport.
Your question about lability is a good one, so I think we
are dealing with very trained pilots, mainly, going into these
places. The second thing is, in cases of emergency, let us say,
in a liability, the only other place is, as you mentioned,
probably the road that you spotted down there. And there is
going to be a question there if somebody gets a lawyer and
wants to really go to work on the owner there, too.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Mr. Durtschi. Could I address how we handled that on one
airstrip in Utah?
Mr. Simpson. Yes.
Mr. Durtschi. The BLM issued a commercial right of way on
the landing field at Mineral Canyon to two operators, Redtail
Aviation out of Moab and Mountain Flying Service out of
Monticello. These operators jointly maintain a liability
insurance policy in order to use that strip commercially. The
back country group is named as the airport manager, and we are
responsible for the ongoing maintenance and upkeep of the
landing strip. But those two entities that wish to use the
strip commercially to haul rafters in, maintain a liability
insurance policy that names the Federal Government as the
insured.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you very much. Well, Phil, as soon as I
saw that videobox there, I knew you had another video to show
us. Your testimony at a hearing would not be complete without
your monitor. It is amazing the places you manage to be at just
the appropriate time.
Can anybody on the panel answer a question for me, what
standards do you expect these strips to be kept up to? In
reading over the bill, I cannot really ascertain what standards
we are going to, you know, expect these fields to be in. Can
anybody answer that question for me?
Mr. Barrett. I think that the standard that these airstrips
need to be maintained to is whatever it takes for the pilot to
be able to land safely and take off safely. And in most cases,
it does not mean meeting a particular length and breadth of
runway or safety areas, that it simply is up to the pilot to
decide whether that airstrip is up to the standards that meet
his aircraft, and his experience and skills. In Utah, we mark
these strips on the chart as for emergency use. But that does
not prohibit people from using them on a more frequent basis,
or intentional basis, if they have the skills and the right
kind of equipment to do so.
Mr. Lipinski. But do not you think with, now, passing the
bill and formalizing this, and putting the Forest Service--I
will not say, in charge, but at least having the ultimate
responsibility for these strips, do not you think that we are
going to have to set some kind of standards at least? You are
shaking your head no.
Mr. Durtschi. No. Each of these landing strips stands on
its own merits, just as Bob said. A fellow by the name of
Gayland Hassleman wrote and published the bible on the idea of
back country landing strips. In that book, he has a photograph
of each strip, what he calls an RHI, Runway Hazard Index. He
talks about egress, go around potential length of the strip,
and has a little formula. Each landing strip has a number that
he has come up with. That is his subjective--that is how he has
it.
Mr. Lipinski. You are saying that he has written a book on
all of these landing strips?
Mr. Durtschi. The ones in Idaho, yes.
Mr. Lipinski. Oh, the ones in Idaho. OK. Because I thought
maybe you might be the man to ask the question, how many strips
does this legislation cover, because no one seems to be able to
give us an answer on that.
Mr. Durtschi. I can tell you what that is in Utah. We have
identified about a dozen.
Mr. Lipinski. There is a dozen in Utah. How many in Idaho?
Mr. Welsh. We believe there are around 50, and the reason I
am a little vague with you is there are strips back there that
are owned by private individuals that we do not have anything
to do with, but they exist back there. But there are around 50
strips that can be accessed this way.
I might add on the maintenance, that there are often times
we think of an airport, the maintenance has to do with the
landing surface. But in back country strips, there is another
hazard, and that is the shrubbery and greenery growing up
around it. And so we work to keep that clear so the approach
can be safe and so forth on that. So it is a little more than
just the dirt. Obviously, there is winter erosion that needs to
be taken care of and that kind of stuff.
Mr. Lipinski. Philip, you were going to say something?
Mr. Boyer. Yes. I think we will take that as an IOU,
Congressman. We will provide you, from our national data base,
the number of airports that are covered by this legislation.
Mr. Lipinski. Now, Phil, wait a second. These are
airstrips, they are not airports. Correct?
Mr. Boyer. This is the back country airstrips that, we will
provide you a number that matches the 50 in Idaho, the ones
that were mentioned by others, but we will do it on a national
basis.
Mr. Lipinski. That would really be very helpful, and I
think everyone needs to know exactly what this legislation is
going to cover as far as strips. I understand that in Idaho you
have similar state legislation to 3661. Is that correct?
Mr. Welsh. That is correct.
Mr. Lipinski. How do you determine, because there was
testimony here earlier about a strip that existed in the
1930's, and maybe into the 1940's, and that it was overgrown.
And then in the 1990's, you decided to, you know, reclaim it
from the wilderness. How do you make a determination on, you
know, what you are going to reclaim, what you are going to stop
and be throwing back to the wilderness, and what you are going
to allow to go back in the wilderness. Do you have any criteria
for that?
Mr. Welsh. There is no specific criteria on that, but when
the Act came in, it specified that the existing strips would
remain in place, and that is what we use, were they in
existence when the Act came in. And the Wilson Bar Strip that I
mentioned earlier was in existence. And so therefore, when we
got down into working with the Forest Service, it became
obvious, it existed before even though it had had some
difficulties in terms of overgrowth; it was not being used as
often. It did qualify, therefore, we cooperated, we
straightened it out, we put it back in service. There are no
strips coming back in that were not in service at the time of
the Act coming in. This Act, as proposed, is the same language
we have and is to preserve what exists today.
Mr. Lipinski. Mr. Chairman, would you indulge me just for
30 seconds more? I see my time is----
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Lipinski. Are there situations where if the plane lands
in an area one time, that you wind up designating that, you
know, as an official airstrip and you keep it in operation
after that? I mean, it seems like in reading the bill, the
potential exists that if Phil is out there flying around with
his video camera and he sees an area that could be a good spot
for an airstrip, he will decide to go down there and land there
so he can go back and say this is an airstrip, we have got to
keep it open. I mean, how many times do you have to land, or
how many times does it have to be an airstrip before, you know,
this legislation is going to cause it to be kept in perpetuity?
Mr. Welsh. I happen to be one of the trained pilots, and I
train people how to do this and so forth. And I can say pretty
safely, in the State of Idaho, all the appropriate places to
land aircraft are now strips. There are not a lot of other
places. And as I taken my students around, I make sure that
they have the mark on their chart right where they are. There
are some riverbanks and so forth, you can do as we call one
landing, but we kind of like to use the airplane again and so I
do not believe that is an ongoing problem at this point.
Mr. Lipinski. All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman,
thank you for the time.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Sherwood.
Mr. Sherwood. Listening to this discussion, it sounds to me
that you are asking us to help you preserve the status quo. You
are not asking for any new strips, you are not asking for any
exotic maintenance, and the liability deal is a little bit like
if I decide I am going rafting on a river, the Federal
Government owns the river, but I have to use my own good
judgment. They are not certifying it is safe. So what I would
think is what you said about you will give us an IOU on an
inventory. I would think that would be pretty important because
if there is an inventory, then you know what the status quo is
to preserve. And it would eliminate the issue that was just
raised about using this as an excuse to create new strips.
And the issues that we are trying to balance are your
rights to aviation and your rights to enjoy the back country
with what other people think might be a little intrusive. And
so it seems to me the policy of the country is not to build
more use, but you are asking us to institutionalize what you
have had, and that seems sort of reasonable to me.
Mr. Welsh. I think it is reasonable to us, too.
Mr. Hansen. The gentlelady from California.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Boyer, how
many landing strips does H.R. 3661 cover?
Mr. Boyer. Well, I think we just talked about that. I do
not think we have an accurate number, and that is the IOU I
promised the committees.
Ms. Napolitano. I am sorry. I must have stepped out a
minute.
Mr. Boyer. That, I would provide, yes. I think that is a
good--we have it by some of the states represented here,
probably Idaho being the most robust in terms of these strips,
but we will provide the committee with those.
Ms. Napolitano. Have you had any problems identified with
any illegal operations?
Mr. Welsh. We have not in Idaho. Again, these are very,
very rural remote areas, and it does not lend itself to a drop-
off place to pick up anything, something like that. You can
only get in there one way and get back out the same way. So it
does not lend itself--we have not had, to my knowledge, any
difficulty like that.
Ms. Napolitano. Is there a specific reason why the
environmentalists or the activists want them closed other than
the noise factor?
Mr. Welsh. I have to simply share my opinion, and I think
that as we work with them, there is a general tendency to want
to keep out any mechanized piece of equipment, and aircraft is
obviously mechanized, that the feeling is that there is
something more pure, or more kosher, or more something if one
walks in there, looks at the beauty of our state, it is better
than if one flies in there, that sort of thing. It is a general
feeling that this is intrusive in that way.
Ms. Napolitano. But the intrusion is limited to the
airfield, the landing strip. You are not necessarily making new
roads or trying to encroach further into the pristine area. Is
that right?
Mr. Welsh. No. We have done some observation with pilots
over the years, and to be absolutely honest, pilots are kind of
lazy, and they tend to camp right next to the airplane. They do
not tend to march five miles into the woods. And so we find
that there is very little movement away from the airstrip
itself. It just is there, it is just a place to go. There are
some of our strips, we have developed with campgrounds around
them and fire rings, those kinds of things. Some are in areas
that is not permitted, and they are not there. But it does not
seem to be any movement from there beyond, nor do we have any
interest to build roads or make them.
We have one strip that we are quite proud of, and I have
never actually measured this, but I am told it is 50 miles from
the nearest four-wheel drive road, and that is a very remote
strip, and we are very glad it is remote. And you can believe
me there, and you can even watch game and moose and walk
through the area in total silence. It is very, very nice. And
the only way you get there is a long, long walk or by aircraft.
Ms. Napolitano. Now, given the inaccessible areas maybe
even the seasons, would you say that a lot of these are not
available during the winter, or the rains, or--I guess what I
am trying to get is the usage versus the perceived, or at least
what I can read, encroachment.
Mr. Boyer. I would definitely say you are absolutely
correct. There are no snow plowing facilities and most of these
are in areas that there is snow. They are really late spring
and, obviously, damp weather is going to prohibit the use of
those strips that are not paved. So in many cases these are
fair weather operations during late spring, summer, early fall.
Mr. Barrett. And strictly daylight operations for the most
part also. It would be impossible to get in and out with no
lighting facilities.
Ms. Napolitano. So there is no way that you can put any
jeopardy on the landing strip by attaching fire to the brush
around it?
Mr. Welsh. No. There is no big fire danger with them at
all. I would be remiss if I did not add one program that we are
very proud of, and we call that Access to Wilderness, where we
fly in physically handicapped adults and children back into
some of our strips. We have volunteer pilots that do that and
it is an exciting day. They pick up people in wheelchairs and
put them in airplanes and take them some place that there is
simply no other way they could get there. So we are delighted
with that program.
Ms. Napolitano. Do you have any capping on the number of
flights that any particular airfield might have during a given
day?
Mr. Welsh. This is something that we in the State of Idaho
are working on very hard to try to identify. We are working
with a person developing a piece of equipment to try to do
that, because we would like to know the answer to that also.
Some of the strips are real obvious, and we have four of our
strips that, state-owned strips, that we have staff there
during the summertime to help people and so forth. And they,
obviously, can count the number of airplanes that come in and
out.
We have one particular strip we do not own, but it will
be--that is used a lot for access for floaters, and there are
people there, and we have pretty good numbers on that one. The
other strips, we do not. And we do a lot of estimates on that,
and most of our estimates run anywhere from one to two flights
a week to one to two flights a day. These are not heavily used
strips.
Ms. Napolitano. Would you kindly just when you make a
report to this committee in regard to the number of airfields,
would you make some notes of some of the more used strips?
Mr. Welsh. I would be glad to provide that, but with the
recognition that we are struggling with that ourselves.
Mrs. Napolitano. Right. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me
say that I certainly applaud you at this effort on this
legislation. And I join these gentlemen here at the table as
well in their support of this legislation.
As someone who probably has as much time in an airplane as
anyone here with nearly 22,000 hours flying time, both as a
private pilot instructor, as a commercial pilot, as a military
pilot, I truly find the significance and the importance of
these small unimproved landing airstrips in the district that I
represent to be incredibly important. The Second Congressional
District of Nevada is about 600 miles wide by about 800 miles
long. It is very difficult to access by car without taking
several days to reverse it. And often times we have used
airplanes and found very comforting the fact that there are
emergency landing strips, little areas that we would have
access to.
And most of the time we focus on the fact that these are
emergency landing strips for airplanes that are in distress
when, in fact, often times in the district that I have the
great fortune to represent, these strips are access for
emergency services to be provided to the communities or to the
residents within the local area. It is not unusual to find a
ranch or a homestead somewhere in these rural areas that may be
four or 5 hours by vehicle from the nearest medical center; in
other words, a car. An injury to someone on one of these rural
ranches often times requires either someone to fly there to
provide a medical service or for them to fly out if they are
going to even save the life of that individual. So the small
rural strips can be ``lifesaving'' to the people on the ground
who depend upon them as well as to pilots in the air who may
inadvertently have the unfortunate problem of having something
go wrong with the aircraft.
My question probably is--my concern is going to go more to
the next panel--but I wanted to talk to somebody about--and
maybe you can talk to me here--about the Dolores Point Landing
Strip. Now, is that in Utah?
Mr. Durtschi. No. It is actually in Colorado. It is along--
it overlooks the Dolores River, about a half-mile inside
Colorado.
Mr. Gibbons. OK. My concern is that it is a longstanding,
long used rural airstrip, that without warning the Bureau of
Land Management used heavy machinery to drag logs onto the
strip. Now, if I were a pilot who may have realized or not
realized that I was going to need that strip, and had relied on
the fact, not knowing that the BLM had intentionally destroyed
access to that strip, had an emergency and eventually chose
that strip from the air, being unable to make any other
determination or fly anywhere else--after all, in some of these
places you have to be in outer space if you want to go between
paved runways, if you have got a glide ratio that will permit.
But if I had used this strip without adequate notice,
without a note being placed by the government that they dragged
logs across it and closed it, let me say that I do believe the
liability would go to the Federal Government for intentionally
destroying access to one of these strips. I would ask any of
you gentlemen if you would feel the same way, or if notice
should have been published, and if this is something that is
going to be a continual problem with the government in their
arrogance even to the laws that we have passed, mandating some
of these airports remain open.
Mr. Boyer. Well, I think once again, the Act providing some
Federal aviation administration oversight, which is where this
belonged, is critical. We have a charting process of every 6
months or sectional charge, the state's publish charts on them,
some of the states on an annual basis, others infrequently. And
the problem is some of these things that you are talking about
occur in between the charting cycles and, therefore, even with
a chart in hand that shows an emergency strip, the actual thing
that you talked about could have happened.
And I provided in my written testimony, we have a letter
from a member in Bend, Oregon, who cited support of the bill
for the very reason you said. He is a member of the Civil Air
Patrol, Search and Rescue. Two hikers were lost. Now, yes, they
could have gone some distance away, obtained a helicopter,
gotten into the strip, but that would have been a very time-
consuming situation. With the airstrip handy, these people
which, fortunately, were found, was a critical factor in
rescuing somebody who had nothing to do with the aviation
recreation or business part.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
Minnesota, the ranking member of the full Transportation
Committee, Mr. Oberstar.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is good
to join you on the podium here to participate with you an issue
of this significance. I have a few brief questions. Are all
these landing strips approved by the Federal land manager?
Mr. Welsh. No, they are not.
Mr. Oberstar. Are any of them in trespass?
Mr. Welsh. I am sorry. Say again?
Mr. Oberstar. Are any of them in trespass; that is, they
are not approved, then they are potentially in trespass on
Federal lands.
Mr. Welsh. Their location is approved in that case, but
what I was using, a term or close to it, the approval, they do
not meet the standards----
Mr. Oberstar. I am not talking about standards. I am
talking about the existence of the strip.
Mr. Welsh. The existence of the strip is approved, yes.
Mr. Oberstar. In each case?
Mr. Welsh. In each case.
Mr. Oberstar. Again, do you know of any where there is a
strip that is used, that it has just been a customary strip
used by aviators but not necessarily approved by Federal land
managers?
Mr. Durtschi. My understanding of the rules and
regulations, at least in Utah, are that the BLM treats the
airplane as any other off-road vehicle. As such, it has the
right to use any road, any landing strip, be it little used or
not, with impunity. In order to operate commercially from that
strip; in other words, to bring people in and out for hire
during tourist season, the BLM would request that the airplane
owner acquire a right of way or a commercial lease on the
landing strip.
Mr. Oberstar. OK. I infer from previous exchange that there
is no standard for determining, verifying, certifying the
condition of those airstrips. Is that correct?
Mr. Welsh. That is correct.
Mr. Oberstar. How does an aviator know it is safe to land
on any one of those? Just because it has been used?
Mr. Welsh. I think it behooves an aviator in these strips,
as any other airport in the nation, that I, as a pilot, have
limitations on my skills and abilities. My aircraft has
limitations on its abilities.
Mr. Oberstar. Well, but that does not apply when you are
flying into a paved general aviation airport or into a general
aviation grass strip that has met the FAA standards or that is
part of NPIAS use. None of these are part of the NPIAS use.
Mr. Boyer. I think, Congressman, the FAR's cover that in
terms of being a pilot. Familiarize yourself with all aspects
of the flight you are embarking on. And an aspect of that
flight is the airport that you are going to depart or land
from, along with the weather and the other regulations. And so
a pilot has to brief himself or herself on the particular
parameters around that airport. I know the book that was
referred to earlier with the pictures and the----
Mr. Oberstar. But Phil, do aviators who are not residents--
I can understand that of natives of the state who are familiar
with and use with some frequency those facilities. But if you
are not from the state, if you are flying in, you have the
understanding that there are grass strips, you can use them,
how do you know? For you to familiarize--what do you use? What
source of information do you use to know that this is a safe
place to land?
Mr. Boyer. Hundreds of these books are sold each year,
normally, to people outside of the state. Normally, people who
want to----
Mr. Oberstar. These are all listed, all these strips are
listed in this book?
Mr. Boyer. They are listed, yes. And usually, parameters
that are made up, and the Internet is providing us with----
Mr. Oberstar. Can you give me one of those?
Mr. Boyer. Yes, I would. I would love to give you the one
from Idaho, which is a fantastic book.
Mr. Oberstar. All of these strips are on Federal lands. Is
that correct?
Mr. Durtschi. No. Some are on state land.
Mr. Oberstar. All of the strips covered by this pending
legislation are on Federal lands?
Mr. Durtschi. No. That is not correct. Some are on state,
school trust lands in Utah.
Mr. Oberstar. Why is there no differentiation in the
legislation then?
Mr. Durtschi. I do not see that there needs to be.
Mr. Oberstar. Well, why should the state have a role in
determining the status of an airstrip on Federal land?
Mr. Barrett. Because the interest of the state in support
of the flying public in that state is that those strips ought
to be accessible by those pilots. If the BLM or the Forest
Service wants to without warning----
Mr. Oberstar. Does the state have any regulatory authority
over those strips?
Mr. Barrett. No, they do not.
Mr. Oberstar. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I appreciate the
opportunity of joining your committee. Are these airstrips,
back country airstrips, shown on charts that pilots use. If you
are flying across the country, you have got the chart that
shows these airstrips as in existence?
Mr. Welsh. Yes, they are.
Mr. Moran. And is it generally local traffic that is
utilizing these airstrips or would it be more likely that it is
people who are flying cross-country--is there a
differentiation?
Mr. Barrett. Mostly, it is local, but we get requests
frequently from people from out of state who want us to send a
copy of our state aeronautical chart so that they can see where
these landing strips are, whether it is because of emergency
preparation or because they intend to land there, we do not
know. But mostly, it is local people who use them, you know,
from our state or a surrounding state.
Mr. Moran. But does a pilot access the chart in what way?
How do you get a chart if I am flying across Utah, I am a
pilot, and I want to know where the strips are?
Mr. Barrett. We get a lot of requests by e-mail, by
telephone for them. We also distribute them through all of the
airports, the public use airports in the state, and we make
them available to anyone who wants one free of charge.
Mr. Moran. Does the chart differentiate the quality of
these airstrips? Is there some designation on the chart that
describes the condition?
Mr. Barrett. In Utah, the chart designates that they are
primarily for emergency use, however, we have taken a number of
them which have been specifically upgraded by the Back Country
Pilots and brought up to a safer condition, we have indicated
those in our airport directory and put considerably more
detail.
Mr. Moran. And are the efforts by Federal agencies to
restrict or prohibit the use of these airstrips, is this a
national policy that is being implemented or is it simply
decisions made by Federal officials locally within their
jurisdiction?
Mr. Welsh. Our experience in Idaho has been local, that we
have found some of the Forest Service personnel are pilots and
they are simply on board with us right off the bat. There are
others that simply take a total hard line on things and so our
experience in Idaho has been a local thing.
Mr. Barrett. Same thing in Utah. There seems to be a great
deal of dissimilarity in the way that they administer from
region to region.
Mr. Moran. So the differentiation is based somewhat on the
attitude of the local official in regard to this issue?
Mr. Barrett. It may be that. It may be a condition upon the
kind of resistance he is getting from others in that area as
well.
Mr. Moran. And the explanation by local officials as to why
these strips should be closed is generally what?
Mr. Barrett. Either disuse or environmental pressure are
probably the two biggest ones that we experience.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
Cooksey.
Mr. Cooksey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to try to get
back to determining exactly where this problem exists. Are most
of these trips in the northwest states or the mountain states
like Idaho? Could you give me a ballpark figure about how many
strips are involved, you know, just a wild guess?
Mr. Welsh. That request was asked earlier, and we have
given you an IOU on that, but the number that we use in Idaho
is 50. And that is not a hard number, because that is very
difficult, and as silly as it sounds--what do you mean, you do
not know how many there are--because there are privately owned
ones and so forth, and what do you include?
Mr. Cooksey. Does this problem exist elsewhere in the
United States or is it just a problem that is unique to these
states, because most of your state is owned by the Federal
Government, Federal lands?
Mr. Boyer. No. As I said, and I do not think you were here,
Congressman Cooksey, from a national perspective, we see this
mainly centered in the western states. Let us say seven western
states to give you a ballpark, knowing that their number is
probably most robust in any state. Let us say there are on
average 25 times 7. But I cite an example in Alaska where this
is beginning to occur. Once again, it tends to occur against
some environmental pressure brought against the local
management of the Federal agency. And then once again, we get
into these knee-jerk reactions rather than an overall policy.
Mr. Cooksey. OK. I am an environmentalist. I like to go
into these areas. I have been in the wilderness areas where you
can go in by foot or horseback, and I understand the argument
for that. Fishing, that is my preoccupation. It is really
better in Louisiana on the coast, but I like to go up in the
mountains occasionally. But when people go in that are also
environmentally concerned about it, when they get lost or have
an injury, do most of them like to walk out, ride a horse out
of there, or would they rather have a plane get them out, after
they have been out of food for two or 3 days?
Mr. Boyer. I think you answered that with the question.
Mr. Cooksey. Another question. How do you get around most
of the time, fixed wing or helicopter?
Mr. Durtschi. In this case we are talking about fixed wing.
Mr. Cooksey. But my question is what is the availability of
helicopters? The availability of helicopters is small compared
to fixed wing?
Mr. Durtschi. Correct. And that is said in our testimony as
a letter from a member that indicates to get a helicopter to
this strip in Oregon would have been very difficult, time-
consuming--not to land the helicopter, but to locate one and
get it there, plus the expense. There is a great deal of
expense for that.
Mr. Cooksey. As a Hughes wing pilot, I still do not trust
helicopters because they have too many moving parts going in
all directions.
Mr. Durtschi. I have flown the Idaho wilderness for eight
or 9 years, and I have yet to see a helicopter ever land.
Mr. Cooksey. OK. Another personal question. There is a
strip somewhere in Idaho that is off the middle fork of the
Salmon that is actually a hunting place, and I went there 10
years ago or more. And I know there was a big--the wreckage
would be about half-way down, because on one side there was a
210. On the other far end, there had just been a crash the
previous year. Do you have any idea what the name of that ranch
is? It is a pretty well known place.
Mr. Durtschi. Thomas Creek, Pistol Creek, Mahoney Sulfur
Creek, Flying B.
Mr. Cooksey. That is it, that is all I need, Flying B.
Mr. Durtschi. We would be glad to take you there.
Mr. Cooksey. I have been there.
Mr. Durtschi. We are leaving this afternoon.
Mr. Cooksey. What kind of condition--why were those planes
crashed there?
Mr. Durtschi. Excuse me?
Mr. Cooksey. Why were the planes crashed there? I know that
you either flew in or you had a two-and-a-half day horseback
ride. And I raise quarter horses, but it was still--flying was
the better option. We insisted in going in a Beaver, which is a
very good plane for that. Why were those planes crashed there?
Mr. Durtschi. I would defer to Mr. Welsh on that.
Mr. Welsh. I am not quite sure the particular incident you
are talking about, but Flying B is an airport. It is on the
middle fork of Salmon, and it is really accessible only by air,
and it is a challenging strip. If the aircraft, or the pilot,
or the weather conditions are not right, it is not something
that I recommend to my students they fly into. It is simply
challenging, and all of these strips have that limitation, and
things do happen.
Mr. Cooksey. Well, you have beautiful country up there and
I really think we should do everything to preserve it, but
aviation is not, you know, the 21st century. It is 20th century
and it is here to stay. It saves lives and saves people that
get lost.
Mr. Welsh. In the first place, it involves flying people
out of the B float trip, where the water got so dangerous that
it was not safe, and the guy who pulled off at the B and said,
who can fly these people out of here. So it can be a real
lifesaver from another way.
Mr. Cooksey. You can either save lives or save trees and
animals. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am a physician so I would
save lives.
Mr. Hansen. I thank the gentleman. I hope the committee
realizes, and as you look at this particular piece of
legislation, you know, we cannot guarantee safety anywhere.
Someone who is going to run a river, he has to take that risk.
If someone is going to drive a four-wheeler out or an ATV, he
takes a risk. The good pilot will pretty well figure out if it
is safe before he lands.
And I know I am not in the category like my friend with
22,000 hours against my 500, but you take a few looks at a
place before you put down, you know what you are getting into.
And so I am just somewhat amazed that sometimes we worry about
that. I mean, this is a certain responsibility comes to every
person in American when they go on public ground or anywhere
else.
I would like to bring up this idea of maintenance. It
seemed to be an issue with BLM and the Forest Service. I have
been given to understand by talking to a lot of groups that
they are more than happy to go in and do the maintenance that
is necessary. I believe Mr. Durtschi brought that up at one
time, as far as maybe cleaning up the airstrip, new tie-downs,
windsock, things such as that to keep it going. And I
complement you for doing that, and that is what we should have
in America is this public participation. And I think, Mr.
Boyer, your people are more than interested in doing things
such as that.
I really want to compliment this committee. I do not know
of a better committee we could have with two people
representing both Utah and Idaho, and Mr. Boyer, representing
the AOPA, and Mr. Durtschi, who is a back country pilot. That
is a good cross-section of experience.
Now, let me respectfully just say something, no disrespect
to anybody here, but do not worry, the Administration will
oppose this bill. I mean, that is to be expected. I have served
as the Chair of this committee for 6 years now, and I was
counting up the other day, and I think there has only been five
that they have not opposed. Most of them, we have a way of
working it out, and bless their hearts, the BLM and the Forest
Service, eventually, we come to a meeting of the minds. And so
I do not mean to--do not be shocked when the next two gentlemen
coming up vigorously oppose your bill and what you are
interested in. That is to always be expected from this
Administration.
Because we have an access philosophy going on, whether it
is ATV's, whether it is four-wheelers, whether it is river
runners, whether it is pilots, or regardless of what it is,
there are some people that have the opinion that access to the
public grounds should be extremely, extremely curtailed. That
does not seem to be the opinion of the American public, but I
am just giving you mine. I am sure my colleagues here could
debate that, but seeing as I have the mike and I am the last
speaker here, I will say it anyway.
With that, let me thank you for being here. We welcome you
to stay. Thank you for your excellent presentation. This has
been one of the more interesting hearings that we have had. And
with that said, we will excuse you gentlemen and turn to the
next one, which is Mr. Pat Shea, Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Land and Minerals Management, Department of the Interior; Mr.
David Alexander, Forest Supervisor of the Payette National
Forest, Department of Agriculture.
Thank you, gentlemen. We surely appreciate your attendance
with us. You know the rules, you have been here before. Mr.
Shea, we will turn to you, sir. Is your mike on?
Mr. Shea. I would be happy to have Mr. Alexander, since he
is more familiar with the forest and has been referred to
several times, to give his specific testimony and then give the
overview, if that would be all right with the Chair.
Mr. Hansen. All of the testimony in its entirety will be
included in the record without objection, and whatever you
gentlemen want to say, we are more than interested in your
testimony.
STATEMENTS OF PAT SHEA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, LAND AND
MINERALS MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY
DAVID ALEXANDER, FOREST SUPERVISOR OF THE PAYETTE NATIONAL
FOREST, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
STATEMENT OF DAVID ALEXANDER
Mr. Alexander. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity
to come here today and speak to you about H.R. 3661. I am David
Alexander, the Forest Supervisor of Payette National Forest,
and I am one of the four supervisors that are responsible for
the management of the Frank Church River of No Return
Wilderness. I have submitted, and I believe you have my full
written testimony, so I am going to try and just summarize that
briefly.
Mr. Hansen. That will be fine.
Mr. Alexander. The Forest Service is involved in many
aspects of aviation, everything from our district people being
out on airstrips working with volunteers from the aviation
community to do maintenance through working with the Department
of Defense to develop low level jet routes across the national
forest for training. We work an awful lot with the outfitting
and guiding association in Oregon and in other states, trying
to make sure we are facilitating their businesses.
I, personally, use back country airstrips a great deal
myself, both for business and for recreation. I am not a pilot,
but it is very reasonable to rent a plane, or to rent a pilot,
go in and recreate, and I have done that a number of times. A
lot of the back country airstrips in our national forest were
developed, really, to service emergency landing points for
early aviators, but they have evolved now to a point that
primary users today are recreational pilots, outfitters and
their planes, state and local governments; particularly, in
regard to search and rescue organizations and, of course, land
managers. We use those strips ourselves for administrative use.
As has been made known earlier, we really do not know how
many back country airstrips there are. It is very difficult to
categorize it across the country. We know maybe a little bit
more about it in forests like the Payette or in Idaho because
of the management issues that we have had, but I have no idea
how many there are nationwide on the national forest. But a lot
of those airstrips are in the wilderness and, of course, the
Forest Service has followed the Wilderness Act of 1964 in many
cases, and a lot of airstrips in the wilderness, or designated
wilderness, have been closed. There have been, however, some
very notable exceptions, and one of those is the establishment
of the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness, where
aviation use is specified as a valid use and where we manage
those airstrips very carefully under the law, trying to follow
congressional direction and intent.
But the Administration does strongly oppose this bill, and
to summarize, the main issues of opposition is, first of all,
it takes the rules that are applied in the Frank Church River
of No Return and somewhat expands those, and then applies them
nationwide. My concern and the concern, I think, of the Forest
Service is that a national policy is counter to our belief that
these decisions can and should be made by professional land
managers based on applicable laws and regulations, current
resources, social conditions, and with full public involvement
and the involvement of other agencies that are involved.
We are concerned that this bill could result in mandating
priorities for maintenance on airstrips in a very limited
budget situation. We have very difficult problems with the
budgets that we use to handle our facilities, and we are a
little bit concerned that the bill could have us into a
situation where we are mandated as to what we have to do. We
are not arguing about the fact that we need to do maintenance,
but to be mandated how much of that budget has got to go that
way.
The bill has some potential to effect land exchanges, and
that is a concern to us. But I think, in summary, we recognize
the importance of aviation in the back country. I do not think
that is the issue here; at least, I hope not. I think we fully
understand the importance of providing opportunities for those
people who, physically, could not otherwise visit the back
country. I think that we understand the importance,
economically, if the air traffic or the air taxi business, and
of the need for outfitters and guides, river rafters, hunters,
hunting outfitters, to get their clients into the back country
using these airstrips. I think that we realize that these
airstrips are extremely important from emergency use by pilots
and also for the health and safety of other wilderness and back
country users.
However, for some of the reasons that I mentioned above,
the Administration strongly opposes the enactment of H.R. 3661.
We believe our current policies provide adequate aircraft
access with the appropriate local flexibility and public input.
I would be pleased to answer any questions.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Alexander follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.026
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Alexander. Mr. Shea.
STATEMENT OF PAT SHEA
Mr. Shea. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, over the
last 30 years that you and I have been involved in politics, we
have always found ways of working out solutions. Indeed, it was
a couple of years ago that I was here on another hearing you
chaired on the fair appraisal question for land exchanges. And
I am pleased to announce to you, as you know, that we have
established a very good working private/public partnership. I
think that kind of dialog has been in the past quite
constructive.
I do have to say with 3661, however, we would be
unalterably opposed to it because in an ironic way, it takes
the local decisionmaking process that I would suggest, even
with the testimony here today, has been working. It is not
broken, it does not need to be fixed.
To answer Congressman Gibbons question about the Dolores
situation, we have made a call to the MOAB office. Their
understanding is that that airstrip was not on BLM land, it was
on private land. We are checking that further and we will
submit something for the record that will give an answer. But
there is a clear public process mentioned by the Utah pilot of
the EIS requirement in Vernal, or out of the Vernal District
office, reflects the ability of the public to participate in
these decisionmaking questions.
Now, I do think the questions related to conflicting uses,
and one, Mr. Chairman, that I am sure you are very sympathetic
to is the air borders that are essential for national defense
in the desert of Utah. You begin encouraging the public to
think that there are airstrips that they can use for
recreational purposes, and you begin to have conflicts between
the needed military use, or in Idaho, around Mountain Home,
that is something that I think would be an unintended
consequence of this legislation.
Utah has had several instances where there have been drug
planes that have landed on these strips, and even though they
are remote, drug dealers are very creative in the ways they
find transporting things. So I think having an unlimited sense
of these airstrips can be put anyplace that the public provides
they need to be would be in certain conflict.
Where the conflict has arisen, in my judgment, has been
where increased recreational use on the ground has begun to
move into areas that, traditionally, could only be accessed
either by horseback, by backpacking, or by air. And I will tell
a personal experience on the Selway, the River of No Return
Wilderness Area, where we floated for 5 days, Moose Creek, it
is a major recreational airstrip. And I have to tell you, that
it is very disconcerting to be floating down the river and all
of a sudden have five or ten aircraft land in the middle of the
area in an unanticipated way. It is not to say that it should
not be there, but I think the BLM process and the Forest
Service process which has been described allows for those
conflicting uses to be resolved on the ground in the local
area.
And I would suggest to you in very strong terms that 3661
is going to yank that decisionmaking out of the local area and
impose a national standard. And given the number of times that
I, as an Administration witness, or other witnesses for the
Administration have been admonished by the Congress to keep
decisionmaking at the local area, I think 3661 creates a
certain conflict with that admonition.
So just to leave the subject, we are concerned about how
budgetary sources would be generated. California has estimated
that we would have to spend $2,000 to $5,000 a year to maintain
these strips. I think the uninformed flyer from the east coast,
coming west, might assume that there was some type of Federal
standard and decide to try to place their plane in a place that
she was not trained to place it. And the accident that would
result, the ranch in Idaho is a good example of how hazardous
this type of flying is. And by allowing the kind of unlimited
right to establish airstrips that I believe 3661 does, you are
inviting future problems.
So my final statement is I hope that we can keep a
constructive dialog going on, that we maintain the kind of
local or regional decisionmaking that FLIPNA requires be
allowed to do or the National Forest Act requires the Forest
Service to do, and not have some sort of Federal legislation
that is one size fits all.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Shea follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7552.031
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Shea. Questions for the
Administration, the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
somewhat perplexed by Mr. Shea's comments with regard to not
wanting to establish a national policy on this area when, in
fact, every time the Administration comes in here, they want a
uniform standard national policy affecting the national forest.
I would prefer that all decisions with regard to the treatment
of our national forest or public lands be local. I appreciate
your understanding and your concern about that. My confusion,
of course, is that you believe this bill is going to create new
airports. It does not; it merely establishes a process for the
closure determination.
And when it comes to terms of military conflicts, I, having
spent twenty-some years in the military using low altitude
corridors, know that those are fully published, they are
identified, they are restricted in certain areas, both in terms
of altitude and airspace. And in that publication, private
pilots are very well aware of where they are, know what they
are in use for. I do not find even at Mountain Home there to be
a conflict as you may state.
Now, my question to you, Mr. Shea, with regard to the
Dolores Point Landing Strip, you said there was a consideration
that it may have been private property. Did BLM spend any money
for any resources or any time using machinery to drag logs onto
the runway or any other item that would have been used to close
the runway?
Mr. Shea. Congressman, I will have to find that answer out
for you and submit it to the committee.
Mr. Gibbons. Would not they have had to come to you to use
an expenditure to do that?
Mr. Shea. They certainly would have had as part of their
innovated land management plan to publish the action, and then
had public comment on it as to how that particular land use was
fitting into their new land management plan under FLIPNA.
Mr. Gibbons. The Mexican Mountain Landing Strip, there is
another one that has been used often times by the private
sector, non-commercial sector. It is in a wilderness study area
which was established after the runway was established there
and used. You and your agencies are attempting to close it even
though it has a preexisting and are required by law to leave it
open. The law says to leave it open. Why are you pursuing
action to close that strip?
Mr. Shea. Again, Congressman, I will have to have the
particular facts as relates to that airport. I would observe
two things: Before an area can be a wilderness area, Congress
has to act on it, and as they did with the Frank Church----
Mr. Gibbons. Well, this is a wilderness study area, so you
and I both know that that has no congressional requirement in
it, although you treat it, defacto, as a wilderness area.
Mr. Shea. And there is disagreement as to how we should
handle that. The Administration, in my judgment, has quite
correctly attempted to manage these as if they were wilderness
areas so no damage would be done.
Mr. Gibbons. But even though the law says that this runway
should remain open, you want to close it.
Mr. Shea. Well, again, I will have to find out the facts
and get a letter to you on that.
Mr. Gibbons. All right. Just for each of you, I want you to
answer this question, if you will. Would you describe for me
the environmental groups that have come to your agency asking
for these airstrips to be closed and tell me what their
rationale is when they approach you--you or your agency?
Mr. Shea. To my knowledge, we have not received any
requests from any environmental groups for a national act. I do
think in the instances of----
Mr. Gibbons. Would you check with your agency to find out--
--
Mr. Shea. I will.
Mr. Gibbons.--so that it is an agency approach as well?
Mr. Shea. Fine. I will do that.
Mr. Gibbons. How about the Forest Service?
Mr. Alexander. I am not personally aware of requests to
close airstrips, but I would need to get back to you on that. I
can tell you that from the area that I manage, I have had no
request of that type.
Mr. Gibbons. OK. And if you would just make an inquiry into
your agency and then report back to us the groups and the
rationale for their request to you to close these airstrips?
Mr. Alexander. All right, sir.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shea, Mr.
Alexander, a state or a group of general aviation pilots want
to keep an airstrip open at the present time. What is the
process that they go through?
Mr. Alexander. The process to keep an area open?
Mr. Lipinski. Well, yes. I guess what I am saying is, if
the Forest Service wants to close down one of these strips, not
allow planes to land there, let it grow over, let it go back to
the wilderness, what is the present course of action for a
state or general aviation pilots?
Mr. Alexander. Well, if the Forest Service were to do this,
it is going to require a decision under the National
Environmental Policy Act, which means that we are going to have
to publicly state our intention, we are going to have to gather
input from the public and from other interested agencies. So it
is going to be well known what our intention is. We would have
to consider a number of alternatives, including a no action
alternative, which is to keep it open. By law, we need to do
that.
That is not, however, an issue that I deal with very much
because for the most part, the airstrips that I deal with in
Idaho are mandated by law to stay open. And so the discussions
that we have are generally of a different nature there,
concerning to what degree do we need to maintain and things of
that nature.
Mr. Lipinski. So there is a process available now that is a
very public process?
Mr. Alexander. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lipinski. Do you have any idea what the cost would be
if we were to enact this legislation on your various bureaus,
departments?
Mr. Alexander. I do not have, because it is in my mind a
bit difficult to interpret. In other words, at this point in
time, we do not have a maintenance requirement or a standard
established on these airstrips that we are keeping open. We do
try to work with various interest groups. We have great, great
cooperation from voluntary workmen, like pilot associations and
things of that nature. They do a tremendous amount of work.
However, our maintenance needs are increasing, primarily,
because these airstrips were designated about 20 years ago, and
vegetation has been growing, and it is not just brush, it is
timber. And we need to get in and start to do some things for
approach and take-off needs to make those areas safe. Those may
be significant in some cases. We are at the current time at the
stage of having a drafted Environmental Impact Statement out as
to how we want to manage the airstrips in Frank Church.
And one of the things that we are proposing is the
possibility of a group of individuals from the FAA, from the
State of Idaho, from private pilot associations, along with the
Forest Service, helping us to understand from each of those
perspectives what needs to be done on each of those airstrips.
We would like to prioritize those and apply our limited funds.
We would like to have the latitude to do that on a local basis,
taking all the factors into account, rather than having that
specified as to what must be done every year.
Mr. Lipinski. Do you have any idea how many strips this
legislation would cover?
Mr. Alexander. I do not, sir. I think Mr. Welsh gave you
about as good an idea of Idaho and some of the areas as I
could. I know that I manage 12 or 13 of them, and I would
assume that, nationally, it may be in the hundreds. I would
assume that, but I cannot substantiate that. I would be very
interested, myself, in learning when the pilot's association
comes forward with that number, I am going to be very
interested.
Mr. Lipinski. I am sure Phil will come up with the number,
too. Is Mr. Bennett here from the FAA to answer some questions?
Mr. Shea. We have a technical person here, yes.
Mr. Hansen. Will you state your name for the record,
please.
Mr. Bennett. My name is David Bennett, Director of Airport
Safety and Standards for the FAA.
Mr. Lipinski. Mr. Bennett, do you have any idea how many
strips we are talking about here?
Mr. Bennett. No, I do not. These are completely outside of
our system of airports.
Mr. Lipinski. OK. Can you tell me what impact this
legislation would have on the FAA?
Mr. Bennett. The bill is a little vague. It involves us in
the planning process for developing a national policy for
approvals of either opening or closing strips. It is really not
consistent with the program that we administer now. We are
directed by law to provide a national plan of airports, a
national system of airports that meet certain criteria that is
published every year, entitled the ``National Plan on
Integrated Airport Systems''. There are about 3,300 airports
nation wide that are included .
Mr. Lipinski. Now, those are airports that the FAA is
responsible for?
Mr. Bennett. Yes. We found that they have a significant
importance to the system to make sure that we serve communities
nationwide. Generally, if they are general aviation airports,
they have at least ten based aircraft and they serve some
community. So that is about 3,300 airports. There are a total
of 18,000 airports in the U.S. Many of these are outside of
that national system, being small private-owned airports. And
from our point of view, these are considered privately owned
airports.
Mr. Lipinski. Now, would you run that by me just once
again. I did not quite get all those numbers, or understand all
those numbers. Would you start with what the FAA is responsible
for and go through--I think you mentioned 18,000, was it?
Mr. Bennett. Yes. Let me work from the 18,000 number back.
Mr. Lipinski. I would appreciate that.
Mr. Bennett. We think there is 18,000 airports.
Mr. Lipinski. Or airstrips?
Mr. Bennett. Yes, there are airstrips and airports of every
kind in the U.S.
Mr. Lipinski. OK.
Mr. Bennett. Of those, a little over 5,000 are public use
facilities. Some of them may be publicly owned, some of them
may be privately owned, but they are open to public use. And
they may include some of these strips which are now shown on
the charts as open for public use. Within that number, about
3,300 are in the FAA's National Plan of Integrated Airport
Systems, and those are the only ones that we participate in the
planning of or provide any Federal support to.
Mr. Lipinski. Do you know if the FAA has a position on this
piece of legislation?
Mr. Bennett. We do not. We have not reviewed it or taken a
position.
Mr. Lipinski. You have not reviewed it at all?
Mr. Bennett. Well, very briefly. We do not have an agency
position on it.
Mr. Lipinski. OK. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Hansen. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from New
Hampshire, Mr. Bass.
Mr. Bass. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do apologize
for being late, a minute or two late for this hearing, and I
regret having missed some of the earlier testimony.
It is my understanding that all this bill says is that if
the Interior Agriculture Department considers the closure of an
airstrip on Federal land, that they have to consult the FAA.
Now, the FAA controls airspace, and they are charged with our
nation's air system, and this bill in no way restricts your
ability to close it. It just says you have to consult them. You
do not even want to consult with anybody. Is that right?
Mr. Shea. Well, I think the bill does not clearly
articulate that consultative nature that you are now
articulating. If you want to narrow it to that perspective,
then, certainly, we would take a second look at it. But as it
presently stands, there is no definition of landing strip,
there is no definition of maintenance.
Mr. Bass. But does not the BLM have a definition of landing
strip? You guys know what a landing strip is. Do you not?
Mr. Shea. No. We do not. Under FLIPNA, we do defer to local
and regional plans for the integrated land management of that
area as to whether or not they will allow that type of use in
that area.
Mr. Bass. Your regulations do not anywhere say the word,
aircraft landing strip? Are you saying that?
Mr. Shea. No. There are, certainly.
Mr. Bass. And it is not defined anywhere, and BLM does not
have any idea what a landing strip is or whether it is defined?
Mr. Shea. I do not think I said that. I said there are
regulations, they are interpreted by local district managers,
generally after public consultation, as to appropriate local
use for those areas.
Mr. Bass. Are there any circumstances in which you would
support a bill that would allow the FAA to play any role in the
determination as to whether an airstrip even properly defined
would remain open or closed?
Mr. Shea. We presently consult with the FAA. In fact, in
Idaho at Mountain Home, as we were going through 99606, which
Congressman Gibbons is very familiar with, we had extensive
consultations on an ongoing basis about keeping up an FAA
airport that was in the middle of a military reservation.
Mr. Bass. But you do not think there should be any----
Mr. Shea. If I could finish? The record is very clear that
the consultation with FAA goes on.
Mr. Bass. On an Ad Hoc basis whenever the Interior
Department or Agriculture Department wants to, but not----
Mr. Shea. Or when the public says this is somebody we
should consult.
Mr. Bass. So your point is then that we do not need the
legislation because the problem is taken care of anyway on an
Ad Hoc basis?
Mr. Shea. I said at the beginning of my statement, I think
before you came in, that I was interested in finding a way to
maintain the local decisionmaking process. And that often
involves consultation with state aeronautic agencies, with
Federal aviation agency, or the military reservations in nearby
areas.
Mr. Bass. The gentleman from the FAA, I take it the FAA is
opposed to this bill?
Mr. Bennett. We have taken no position on it.
Mr. Bass. Are you willing to?
Mr. Bennett. I do not think we have any plan to take a
position on this legislation.
Mr. Bass. It would be appreciative if you might be willing
to bring this to the attention of Jane Garvey, Administrator
Garvey, and ask her if she would be willing to write me a
letter and tell me what she thinks about it.
Mr. Bennett. I will do that.
Mr. Bass. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire. The
gentleman from Nevada, do you have further questions?
Mr. Gibbons. Well, only one. I would address Mr. Alexander
with this. When the Forest Service has gone through this public
process about determining closure of an airport, and there is a
finding of no significant impact, or whatever, how many times
has the Forest Service gone forward and closed an airport when
there was a finding of no significant impact?
Mr. Alexander. I am not aware of that on an national scale.
I can localize it a bit, though. When we went through the
process on Frank Church and developed a new plan, and it was
under NEPA, there was language in the first draft that said
that we think we ought to allow four of these airstrips to
gradually close themselves because they are of marginal safety.
That was an area of quite a bit of controversy in the aviation
community. Their input has been noted and we have withdrawn
that proposal.
We have taken a step back and said that is not going to be
the appropriate thing to do. The question now is, at what level
are we going to keep them open and how much maintenance are we
going to be doing? And that is an ongoing dialog. But we have
taken the idea of either closing or allowing those strips to
close through neglect, off the table, it is not appropriate.
Mr. Gibbons. So how many times would you say the Forest
Service has taken a no action?
Mr. Alexander. I could not tell you that on a national
scale, sir.
Mr. Gibbons. The bill itself does not require you to create
or actually maintain an airport without consideration for the
existing surroundings. At what level of expense would you think
that would take?
Mr. Alexander. Well, the difficulties that we have in the
language of the bill is assessing that. Now, understand that in
my area, I am already required to involve the State of Idaho by
law in any decisions we make regarding the wilderness. So the
addition of the FAA in this Act increases that. But at this
point, we are working on a very low-key level in determining
that. We intend to raise the level of determination of what
needs to be done at these airports. They are in Idaho--
airstrips, I should say--but I cannot project under the bill,
under the language of the bill, what the cost might be.
It appears that there is an opportunity there for the
priority and the designation of maintenance work to be done in
the consultation process, although, the cost would be ours. And
ultimately, I think the liability of the airstrip is ours.
Mr. Gibbons. At what level does safety play a role in your
decision process?
Mr. Alexander. A tremendous amount.
Mr. Gibbons. Would you say it is the No. 1 considering
factor?
Mr. Alexander. I believe it is.
Mr. Gibbons. All right. Now, if safety required that the
runway be paved in your forest versus a dirt or gravel strip,
would you dictate then that the runway be paved?
Mr. Alexander. Experience has not shown that to be a
consideration. We have been using these strips for probably 60
years, maybe more.
Mr. Gibbons. And 60 years has shown that many of these
strips can be used safely. There is an incident or two on
almost every airport, whether it is Chicago O'Hare or the
Flying B, or whatever it is.
Mr. Alexander. That is correct. I do not believe we are
talking about being concerned with the fact that the
maintenance levels would be dictated to be above and beyond
what is reasonable. We have fatalities almost every year on my
forest in aviation. I know Mr. Welsh could probably give you
facts and figures about that more than I can. I have lost some
close friends who were pilots back there, but it has not been
from the safety of the airstrip. Generally, flying in
mountainous conditions is just a hazardous business.
Mr. Gibbons. Right. And in most of those occasions, the
determination of air is rested with the pilot rather than the
Forest Service.
Mr. Alexander. Yes.
Mr. Gibbons. If not every one of those occurrences. Is
that----
Mr. Alexander. Exactly. We fully understand that we do not
have the responsibility of the determination of airspace. That
is the FAA's business. What we are concerned with is providing
for a safe landing strip that in and of itself does not provide
a hazard to the aviation user.
Mr. Gibbons. Some of those airports have been there for 60
years, so there is a presumption that they have been used
safely in the past and could be used safely in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire, and I
thank Mr. Shea and Mr. Alexander for being with us today and
sharing your thoughts with us. And with that, we will stand
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]