[Senate Hearing 108-731]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-731
NATIONAL PARKS AIR TOUR MANAGEMENT ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TO
CONDUCT OVERSIGHT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL PARKS AIR
MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2000 (PUBLIC LAW 106-181)
__________
JULY 22, 2004
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
97-456 WASHINGTON : 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee RON WYDEN, Oregon
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana EVAN BAYH, Indiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JON KYL, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma Vice Chairman
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BOB GRAHAM, Florida
GORDON SMITH, Oregon MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JON KYL, Arizona EVAN BAYH, Indiana
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Thomas Lillie, Professional Staff Member
David Brooks, Democratic Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii.................. 13
Barger, Don, Southeast Region Director, National Parks
Conservation Association....................................... 32
Chevalier, J. David, CEO, Blue Hawaiian Helicopters, Kahului, HI. 25
Hoffman, Paul, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife and
Parks, Department of the Interior.............................. 7
Maynard, Charles W., Member of the National Parks Overflight
Advisory Group................................................. 28
Resavage, Roy, President, Helicopter Association International,
Alexandria, VA................................................. 22
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 1
Withycombe, William C., Regional Administrator, Western-Pacific
Region, Federal Aviation Administration........................ 2
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 45
NATIONAL PARKS AIR TOUR
MANAGEMENT ACT
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 22, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Craig Thomas
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Thank you all very much for being here. I
want to welcome the witnesses today to the National Parks
Subcommittee.
Our purpose is to conduct oversight on the implementation
of the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000.
The National Parks Air Tour Management Act was passed 4
years ago. The intent was to ensure that visitors to our
national parks have a safe and enjoyable experience, whether
they are visiting on foot or in the air.
In the 4 years since the act was passed, the Federal
Aviation Administration and the National Park Service has
struggled to form a cooperative working relationship. I
certainly understand and appreciate the hard work of the
agencies and understand the difficulty of putting something
like this together. However, I am concerned that it has taken
the National Park Service and FAA nearly 4 years to complete a
seven-page memorandum of understanding and that the
environmental assessment process has only recently begun. This
is a very slow process. It cannot be good for the parks or for
the commercial air tour operators.
The purpose of this hearing is to gain a better
understanding of some of the issues involved: No. 1, the
proposed schedule for completion of the planning process; two,
key issues affecting the cooperative relationship between the
agencies; and finally, how a lengthy implementation schedule
may affect the commercial air tour operations and the national
park resources.
So I hope we can address those issues, get an idea of where
we are, what the schedule for completion would be, what are the
key issues that still exist with respect to the agencies, and
then talk a little bit about the impact that we are having by
having this rather long time to get into place.
So I want to welcome panel one: Mr. Bill Withycombe,
Regional Administrator, Western-Pacific Region of FAA, and Mr.
Paul Hoffman, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife and
Parks, the Department of the Interior. Thank you, gentlemen,
for being here.
Your full statements will be put in the record and if you
would just kind of summarize it and tell us where you are, why,
we will appreciate it. Would you like to begin, Mr. Withycombe.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. WITHYCOMBE, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR,
WESTERN-PACIFIC REGION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Withycombe. Good afternoon. I would like to thank the
subcommittee for the opportunity to appear before you today,
along with my colleague, Deputy Assistant Secretary Hoffman, on
the implementation of the National Parks Air Tour Management
Act of 2000.
I am the FAA Regional Administrator who has been given the
program responsibility for implementing this act. Over the past
several years, we have worked very closely with the Department
of the Interior and the National Park Service, better known as
NPS in my statement, on establishing the groundwork for
implementing the act. On behalf of Secretary Mineta and
Administrator Blakey of the FAA, I would like to thank DOI and
NPS for their dedication and cooperation in this important
effort.
I would also like to offer my full statement for the record
and briefly summarize how FAA has worked with the National Park
Service to make this program a reality.
Over time, the popularity and frequency of air tours over
some of our Nation's national parks has increased. Concern has
also increased over how the tours were affecting park resources
and their enjoyment by visitors. In response in 2000, Congress
enacted the legislation known as the National Parks Air Tour
Management Act to regulate air tours over parks and tribal
lands through, among other things, the development of air tour
management plans. The FAA and the National Park Service
developed cooperative plans to do this.
In accordance with the act, the FAA and the National Park
Service established the National Parks Overflights Advisory
Group, better known as the NPOAG, which has provided, and
continues to provide, valuable advice to our agencies on issues
related to the implementation of the act. In fact, the NPOAG is
going to be meeting three times during this fiscal year. The
next meeting is here in Washington on September 9 and 10.
We also, in cooperation with the National Park Service,
established minimum altitude to complete our statutory
definition of what constitutes commercial air tour operations.
We determined this through rulemaking that was effective in
January of last year. Along with completing the rulemaking
action, the FAA and NPS finalized earlier this year a
Memorandum of Understanding regarding implementation of air
tour management planning. The MOU establishes a timeframe and
framework for cooperation and participation between FAA and
NPS.
We have also established a website and an advisory circular
that provides guidance to air tour operators. We also have
produced a public information video that we use when we hold
outreach meetings.
To date, the FAA has received applications for air tour
operations from 91 separate air tour operators. Commercial air
tour operations are currently conducted or proposed for over
107 national parks and 6 specific tribal lands.
Because the ATMP's are a new program that raise issues that
have not been dealt with before, we decided the best approach
would be for the FAA, along with the National Park Service, to
initiate development of ATMP's and associated environmental
documents at a relatively small number of parks, 9 of the 113
locations.
At each of the nine parks noted above, we have completed
some baseline noise monitoring, and agency scoping has been
started. We are now in the initial stages of identifying
potential impacts and developing ATMP alternatives to mitigate
or prevent significant adverse impacts on the parks. We are
doing this under the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA,
in cooperation with, of course, the National Park Service in
preparation of these related documents.
We have paid particular attention to public outreach in
this effort, publishing notices of our intent in developing the
ATMP's and associated environmental documents. We have started
public scoping in each of these parks that I mentioned before,
and during the scoping period, we invited the public, agencies,
and other interested parties to provide detailed comments.
As recently as last week, we held consultation with the
Kapuna Group members in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park and
Haleakala National Park, and with the Federal Advisory
Commission and other patient community members on Kalaupapa
National Historical Park. Through consultation, we will better
understand the cultural resources within each park, the impacts
of air tour operations on the park resources, and the use of
them.
The FAA and the National Park Service will use this
information we gain through the public outreach effort to
provide information on the environmental studies that we need
to do and through the public agency scoping to identify
significant issues and potentially significant impacts on the
operations.
Although we focused on these nine parks, we are moving
ahead with other parks, specifically four other parks within
the 48 States. These are located in Arizona and Montana.
We believe that significant progress has been made so far
in implementing the act, and we are working together to resolve
such issues as interim operating authority, new operator
approval, and increases in flights that have been requested by
other operators.
There are challenges associated with this. We have received
approximately 15 new entrant applications, and the FAA and
National Park Service are currently working to establish
criteria and processes for making the necessary determinations
for granting such authority. We have asked the special NPOAG
committee to study these issues for us and give us their
advice.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, the FAA and the National Park
Service are working cooperatively and collaboratively to reach
a conclusion on these matters, and I am confident that mutually
acceptable conclusions will be reached. I can assure you that
we take seriously our responsibilities under the act to
mitigate and prevent significant adverse effects due to air
tours on the precious resources of our national parks. At the
same time, we also appreciate the value and benefits afforded
to the public who wish to view the parks via air tours.
How to balance these interests in accordance with the
direction provided by Congress under the act is our task. We
will look forward to continuing our work with the National Park
Service on this effort and appreciate the committee's interests
in our program.
That concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
address any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Withycombe follows:]
Prepared Statement of William C. Withycombe, Regional Administrator for
the Western-Pacific Region, Federal Aviation Administration
Chairman Thomas, Senator Akaka, Members of the Subcommittee, good
afternoon. I would like to thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity
to appear before you today, along with my colleague from the Department
of Interior, on our implementation of the National Parks Air Tour
Management Act of 2000 (Act). I am the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) Regional Administrator who has been given the program
responsibility for implementing the Act. Over the past several years,
we have worked very closely with the Department of Interior (DOI) and
the National Park Service (NPS) on establishing the ground work for
implementing the Act and, on behalf of Secretary Mineta and
Administrator Blakey, I would like to thank DOI and NPS for their
dedication and cooperation in this important effort.
I would like to briefly describe what the Act provides and how the
FAA has worked, along with the NPS, to make this new program a reality.
Over time, as the popularity and frequency of air tours over some of
our nation's National Parks increased, concern also increased over how
such tours were affecting Park resources and their use and enjoyment by
visitors. In response, Congress enacted the National Parks Air Tour
Management Act on April 5, 2000 as part of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, known as Air-21. The
Act requires all persons operating or intending to conduct a commercial
air tour operation over or within half a mile from the border of a
National Park, or over tribal lands within or abutting a National Park,
to apply to the FAA for authority to conduct such tours. The Act
further requires that FAA and NPS cooperatively develop an Air Tour
Management Plan (ATMP) for each unit of the National Park System or
tribal land that does not have a plan in effect at the time a person
applies for tour authority. The purpose of an ATMP is to provide
acceptable and effective measures to mitigate or prevent significant
adverse impacts, if any, of commercial air tour operations on Park
natural and cultural resources, visitor experiences, and tribal lands.
The Act also states that the NPS has the responsibility of conserving
the scenery and natural and historic objects and wildlife in national
parks and of providing for the enjoyment of national parks in ways that
leave them unimpaired for future generations and that the FAA has the
authority to preserve, protect, and enhance the environment by
minimizing, mitigating or preventing the adverse effects of aircraft
overflights on public and tribal lands.
The Act specifically excludes the Grand Canyon National Park,
tribal lands within or abutting Grand Canyon National Park, parks or
tribal lands located in the state of Alaska, and flights conducted by a
commercial air tour operator over or near the Lake Mead National
Recreation Area solely as a transportation route to conduct an air tour
over Grand Canyon. The Act expressly prohibits commercial air tour
operations over the Rocky Mountain National Park, regardless of
altitude.
In addition to the requirements set forth for commercial air tour
operators, the Act directed the FAA and NPS to establish an Advisory
Group to provide continuing advice and recommendations with respect to
the Act's implementation, commonly accepted quiet aircraft technology,
measures to accommodate Park visitor interests, and any other issues
that the FAA or NPS request. Accordingly, FAA and NPS established the
National Parks Overflights Advisory Group (NPOAG), which has provided,
and continues to provide, valuable advice to both the FAA and NPS on
issues related to implementation of the Act. In fact, the NPOAG will be
meeting three times during this fiscal year, the next meeting being
right here in Washington DC on September 9th and 10th.
Under the Act, the FAA, with the cooperation of NPS, was required
to establish a minimum altitude to complete the statutory definition of
a ``commercial air tour operation.'' Determination of this aspect of
the definition was necessary before the Act's commercial air tour
operating requirements could come into effect. The FAA did this through
rulemaking, seeking public comment through a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, published in April 2001. Approximately 2,400 comments were
received in response to the Notice. The issuance of the final rule was
delayed, however, in part, by the priority necessarily given to
security related rulemaking the FAA conducted following the tragic
events of September 11, 2001. We issued the final implementing
regulations on October 25, 2002, with an effective date of January 23,
2003. The implementing regulations are contained in part 136 of title
14, Code of Federal Regulations.
Along with completing the rulemaking actions, the FAA and NPS
finalized earlier this year a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
regarding implementation of air tour management planning. The MOU
establishes a framework for cooperation and participation between the
FAA and NPS. In addition, we have developed several public information
resources to support implementation of the program. These include:
A website through which the public can obtain detailed
information about the program and may register to obtain
notification about public involvement opportunities for
specific parks. This website address is www.atmp.faa.gov.
FAA Advisory Circular 136-1, which was published on October
25, 2003. This Advisory Circular provides guidance to air tour
operators on the application process and other details related
to compliance with Federal Aviation Regulation Part 136.
A public information video, produced in cooperation with the
NPS that provides an overview of the ATMP program. This video
has been used during the public outreach and scoping meetings
we've held to provide a basic understanding of the program. The
video is available for public viewing on the FAA's ATMP
website.
To date, the FAA has received applications for air tour operating
authority from 91 separate air tour operators. Commercial air tour
operations are currently conducted, or are proposed for, over 107
national park units and six specific tribal lands. To put this in
context, there are currently 384 units of the National Park System in
the U.S. The level of commercial air tour activity over Parks ranges
from as many as over 30,000 annual operations over Hawaii Volcanoes
National Park to as few as five or less annual operations at numerous,
smaller parks.
Because the establishment of ATMPs is a new program that raises
issues that we have not dealt with before, we decided that the best
approach would be for the FAA, along with the NPS, to first initiate
development of ATMPs and associated environmental documents at a
relatively small number of parks--9 of the 113 locations--in order to
work out any threshold issues regarding implementation before moving on
to developing plans at all locations. The nine selected parks include
the three major parks in the state of Hawaii: Hawaii Volcanoes National
Park, Haleakala National Park, and Kalaupapa National Historical Park;
three smaller parks located on the island of Hawaii; Lake Mead National
Recreation Area; Mount Rushmore National Monument; and Badlands
National Park. These parks were selected based on consideration of the
level of air tour activity, unique issues associated with the
particular park, economies of travel, the expertise and ongoing working
relationships among local NPS and FAA staff and the air tour operators,
and/or the previous activities related to management of air tour
operations.
ATMPs and supporting environmental reviews under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are required for each park where air
tours are, or will be, conducted regardless of the level of tour
activity. We intend to implement each ATMP through rulemaking, which
will require some time, but will ensure that all interested parties
have the opportunity to understand and comment on the ATMPs. All ATMPs
will be subject to public participation. We anticipate that the first
ATMPs will be completed in late 2005.
At each of the nine parks noted above, we have completed some
baseline noise monitoring and public and agency scoping. We are now in
the initial stages of identifying potential impacts and developing ATMP
alternatives to mitigate or prevent significant adverse impacts on the
parks. To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), the FAA and NPS will cooperatively prepare an Environmental
Assessment (EA) for each ATMP. Based on the results of the EA, the FAA
will prepare either a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or a
full Environmental Impact Statement.
We have paid particular attention to public outreach, publishing
notices of our intent to develop the ATMPs and associated Environmental
Assessments for each of the nine parks in March and April this year. We
completed public and agency scoping meetings in April and May. As
required by the Act, we held at least one public scoping meeting and an
agency scoping meeting for each project. During the scoping period, we
invited the public, agencies, and other interested parties to provide
detailed comments, suggestions, and input regarding all aspects of
commercial air tour operations and their potential impacts, as well
potential ATMP alternatives. We also successfully facilitated the
filing of public comments through our website.
We, along with the NPS, have also initiated specific consultation
regarding potential impacts to historic properties, in accordance with
section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and have pursued
Government-to-Government consultations with affected Indian Tribes. As
recently as last week, we held consultations with Kupuna (Native
Hawaiian Elders) Group members at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park and
Haleakala National Park and with the Federal Advisory Commission and
other patient and community members at Kalaupapa National Historical
Park. Through consultation, we will better understand the cultural
resources within each Park, the impacts of air tour operations on park
resources and the use of them, and gain an appreciation for concerns
about air tour operations in general.
FAA and NPS will use the information gained through this public
outreach along with information gained in ongoing environmental studies
and through public and agency scoping to identify the significant
issues and potentially significant and adverse impacts related to
commercial air tour operations. We certainly recognize that there are
very disparate views on this subject. That is why we are moving
carefully and seeking as much public input and information as possible
to help guide development of ATMP alternatives and provide the basis
for determining if any limitations or restrictions on commercial air
tour operations are necessary and justified.
Although our focus so far has been on these nine parks, we are also
moving ahead on certain studies for other parks. Specifically, we will
initiate noise monitoring at four additional parks this summer in
conjunction with the primary air tour season. These parks include
Glacier National Park located in Montana, and three parks in Arizona:
Canyon De Chelly National Monument, Navajo National Monument, and the
Petrified Forest National Park.
With regard to resources to support implementation of the ATMP
program, the FAA has received $21 million over the past four fiscal
years (FY-01 through FY-04). To date, we have obligated $19 million
towards our operational costs and to the Volpe National Transportation
System Center (Volpe Center), administered by one of our sister DOT
agencies, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), to
provide contract support to the program. We have tasked the Volpe
Center to develop environmental and ATMP documents for a total of 18
park and tribal land locations. The current level of obligation can
fund an additional 18 locations, which brings the total locations
currently funded to 36. Our current estimates indicate a cost of
approximately $.5 million per location to complete the development of
the required NEPA and ATMP documents. Under the terms of our MOU, the
FAA and NPS have agreed to a cost sharing of 60% FAA and 40% NPS for
preparing ATMPs, subject to availability of funding. However, to date,
the NPS has not been able to provide funding for the program.
We believe that we have made significant progress so far in
implementing the Act, overcoming certain challenges to interagency
collaboration by working together to resolve policy matters and to
improve communication. However, our work is far from finished. There
are several important issues that we are now in the process of
resolving. These include matters related to noise modeling and
determining significance of environmental impacts. Also, we are in the
process of double-checking the basis for interim operating authority
granted to existing commercial air tour operators because we think
misunderstandings about how to count air tour operations per Park have
led to cases of inaccurate numbers of authorized flights. We must
additionally handle requests from existing tour operators for increases
in flights over Parks pending development of applicable ATMPs. The FAA
has received a number of requests from existing operators for increases
in air tour operations and we anticipate more requests in the future.
No increases have been authorized to date because of concerns about the
accuracy of current flight numbers and because criteria and a process
for granting increases are still under development by FAA and NPS.
Another challenge we face is the issuance of interim operating
authority to new entrant tour operators. The FAA has required tour
operators who initiated service after the Act was enacted to cease
operations pending the development of the ATMP or until interim
operating authority is granted to them as a new entrant. Under the Act,
interim operating authority may only be granted to a new entrant if the
FAA determines that it is necessary to ensure competition, and may not
be granted if we determine it would create a safety problem or if the
NPS determines it would create a noise problem. Approximately 15 new
entrant applications have been received. FAA and the NPS are currently
working on establishing criteria and processes for making such
determinations, and we have asked for the advice of the NPOAG on this
issue.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, the FAA and the NPS are working
cooperatively and collaboratively to reach a conclusion on these and
other matters, and I am confident that mutually acceptable conclusions
will be reached. I can assure you that we take very seriously our
responsibility under the Act to mitigate or prevent significant adverse
effects due to air tours on the precious resources of our national
parks. At the same time, we also appreciate the value and benefits
afforded to the public who wish to view our parks via air tours. How to
balance these interests in accordance with the direction provided by
Congress under the Act is our task. We look forward to continuing our
work with the NPS on this effort and appreciate this Committee's
interest in our programs.
That concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to address
any questions you may have.
Senator Thomas. All right, sir. Thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary.
STATEMENT OF PAUL HOFFMAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Hoffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
to testify on behalf of the Department of the Interior on the
implementation of the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of
2000, and thank you for including my written testimony in the
record.
The National Parks Air Tour Management Act directs both the
Park Service and the FAA to develop plans for the 107 park
units that currently have air tour operations. The act directs
the FAA and the Park Service to work cooperatively in the
development of these plans. Specifically the act says that FAA
is the lead on NEPA analysis. The Park Service is a cooperating
agency, but both of us are required to sign an EA or an EIS
that is the output of that NEPA process.
Before we could get started developing any actual plans,
there was some big-picture coordination, if you will, that was
required for us to establish some of the processes and
standards by which we develop these plans. My cohort, Mr.
Withycombe, mentioned that there was a National Parks
Overflights Advisory Group established, and they have been a
very important part of the process. They assisted in the
development of regulations associated with this law and provide
input on an ongoing basis, helping us in analyzing these
issues.
It was necessary for us to identify the responsible
personnel within each agency for the development and
implementation of these plans.
There was the need to meld two fairly distinct
organizational missions. The Federal Aviation Administration is
largely responsible for managing our airspace and ensuring that
air travel is safe and available to the general public. That
was a pretty good butcher job of a description of your mission,
Bill. And of course, the Park Service mission is to conserve
the natural resources and the wildlife and the cultural and
historic resources, while maintaining the opportunity for
people to visit those and do that in such a way as to leave
them both unimpaired for future generations.
There was a lot of work to be done to reach agreement on
how impacts are analyzed. Impacts from air tours are a unique
blend of science and analysis.
There was a need for scheduling and budgeting for the air
tour management plans.
And there was a need to reconcile our distinct agency
approaches to conducting NEPA analysis.
And we had to develop some interim operating authorities
for the existing air tour operators at the 107 parks in order
to allow them to continue to do business until an air tour
management plan is developed for each of those parks.
We have made some progress and we have some procedural
accomplishments. We did sign an MOU on how we would conduct
this process. The Park Service signed that in January of this
year. So that is in place. Even though the act designates the
FAA as the lead agency and the Park Service as a cooperating
agency, under our MOU there is much more emphasis on
cooperative NEPA analysis and cooperative development of the
science that goes into the analysis of these impacts.
The MOU also assigns responsibility for the funding of the
development of ATMP's with the FAA picking up 60 percent and
the Park Service picking up 40 percent of the cost of each
ATMP.
There was a high-level meeting held this January over at
FAA. I attended part of that meeting. It was also attended by
the Council on Environmental Quality, and I would characterize
it as a very successful meeting. It concluded after 2 days of
hard, rigorous work. There are greatly improved communications
as a result of that. I think there is greater respect by each
agency of the other agency's missions. I think we established
some boundaries as to our missions, and we agreed on an
approach to conducting NEPA.
We are working to develop an agreement on an implementation
plan for the development of ATMP's. The basis for this is that
we believe having an implementation plan will give us a more
legally defensible plan in the end. It will address some of the
broader issues. We can negotiate them once, make them part of
the implementation plan, instead of negotiating them with each
plan. It will provide greater efficiencies and more consistency
in the development of these plans. The draft implementation
plan is expected to be available by the middle of August.
There is greater coordination and cooperative development
regarding technical issues relative to the measurement of sound
and the analyses of those sounds that are conducted. We are
working very closely with the Department of Transportation's
Volpe Center, which is their contractor that conducts sound
modeling and measurement and analysis processes for the FAA. We
are utilizing the FICAN committee to help us address some of
the questions we each have about how we measure and analyze
sound.
The reality of this is that this issue is somewhat
complicated by the spill-over impacts of what we do with ATMP's
and how that can impact or is impacted by what we are doing
with the Grand Canyon Overflights Act to resolve the air tour
issue there or how that spills over into affecting how the FAA
analyzes airport expansion projects or how noise analysis and
impacts affect military preparedness, the military training
exercises. So what we do in the way of analyzing sound impacts
and measuring those sounds and addressing those impacts has
pretty significant spill-over impacts in other areas of
responsibility for the FAA and the Park Service.
We have a current air tour management plan process
underway. Bill hit on that. We are analyzing and starting the
process for six parks in Hawaii, four on the big island, one
each on Maui and on Molokai, and we have seven mainland parks
that we are in the process of developing ATMP's for.
We have held coordination and familiarization meetings with
the parks so that the FAA and the parks could share information
specific to those particular units. We have had scoping
meetings in Hawaii, as well as Lake Mead, Badlands National
Park and Mount Rushmore National Monument. And we have acoustic
monitoring that has or is taking place in those parks, as well
as four other parks, the Navajo National Monument, Canyon de
Chelly, Petrified Forest, and Glacier National Parks.
We are continuing our coordinated and cooperative approach
to developing air tour management plans. We are working on
acoustic measurements and the analyses and the modeling. This
is a very complicated subject that requires a lot of detailed
attention. We are addressing issues which are sort of unique to
air tour management plans, such as the difference between
sounds that are audible versus noticeable. We are addressing
differences in the way the FAA looks at impacts where they
consider and the act actually directs them to analyze and
mitigate significant adverse impacts, and the Park Service
standard is impairment of resources. All impacts do not
constitute impairment, but all impairments are impacts. So we
are working through some of those delicate differences.
We have improved our NEPA coordination. We have got respect
for each agency's expertise. The FAA recognizes that the Park
Service's specific expertise is in protecting resources and the
values for which the parks were established, and we recognize
that the FAA's expertise is in managing airspace and keeping
the airspace that people fly in safe.
That pretty much concludes my testimony, and I will open it
up to questions as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoffman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul Hoffman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to report to the
committee on the status of implementation of the National Parks Air
Tour Management Act (NPATMA). I am pleased to report that much progress
has been made since our last appearance before the Senate Subcommittee
on Aviation in 2002. I will briefly address the specific aspects of the
program in which the Committee has noted interest.
OVERALL IMPLEMENTATION--PROGRAM PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Pursuant to the NPATMA, the National Park Service Air Tour
Management Program (ATMP) is responsible for working with the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) to develop air tour management plans in
the 107 park units where operators have applied for operating
authority. The development of this many plans requires considerable
coordination between the National Park Service (NPS) and the FAA
including identifying 1) the roles and responsibilities of the FAA and
the NPS personnel, 2) how to ensure that the missions of the two
agencies are both incorporated in the planning process, 3) how resource
impacts are to be analyzed, and 4) schedules, budgets, and other basic
elements fundamental to program planning. Perhaps the biggest challenge
to program implementation for their two agencies has been how to
reconcile our differing agency-specific requirements for National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents.
Both the NPS and the FAA have made significant efforts this past
year that have resulted in improved agency relations and allowed us to
move forward together in various areas. A summary of these efforts is
followed by a more detailed description of each of the relevant issues.
After enactment of NPATMA, the agencies began working on an
implementation plan to address how the environmental documents will be
prepared, how park units will be prioritized with respect to the 107
air tour management plans, and how agency personnel will administer
both programmatic and park-specific tasks. In 2003, a decision was made
to set aside the development of the implementation plan in favor of
initiating park-specific planning for more than 20 units. In January
2004, key officials, lawyers, and program staff from the FAA and the
NPS met for two days to establish better working relationships and
address some higher-level policy matters, including how best to meet
Congress's intent that we better manage air tours to protect park
resources from any potential adverse impacts from those air tours. The
meetings were hailed as a huge success by both agencies, providing
insight, knowledge, perspective, and respect for the other agency.
During the meeting, the FAA and NPS finalized a Memorandum of
Understanding to guide the cooperative effort of the two agencies, as
specified in NPATMA. In May 2004, both agencies agreed that, in
addition to moving forward on park-specific plans, they should return
to efforts to complete the implementation plan. In doing so, the FAA
and NPS acknowledged that negotiating the broad-based issues in the
context of the implementation plan, rather than renegotiating similar
issues for each park, would be more efficient and would help achieve
greater consistency and more legally defensible park-specific plans.
The FAA and the NPS met the week of June 21, 2004 to write the
implementation plan and intend to complete a final draft by mid-August
2004.
Shortly after enactment of NPATMA, the DOT's Volpe Center was
contracted by the FAA to assist in the coordination of technical issues
and development of Environmental Assessments (EAs), and has been a
critical partner in the implementation of the ATMP for both agencies.
The NPS and the FAA meet twice a year for program planning with the
DOT's Volpe Center. The Volpe Center program staff has been involved in
the production of both work schedules and cost estimates for the air
tour management plan EAs. Although initially working mostly through the
FAA, the Volpe Center staff has also begun working closely with the NPS
as our collaborative efforts continue to trickle down through both
agencies.
PARK-SPECIFIC AIR TOUR MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
As mentioned above, in 2003, the FAA and the NPS initiated air tour
management plans for 13 specific park units: six\1\ in Hawaii, and
seven\2\ in the continental U.S. Initial meetings were held with
federal and local team members at each park unit to provide an
orientation to the park, to discuss air operations at the park, and to
acquaint the park personnel with the process and scheduling for air
tour planning. The meetings were also used to initiate the collection
of necessary information including resource data and contact
information for potentially affected or interested parties and
agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Haleakala and Hawaii Volcanoes National Parks; Kalaupapa,
Kaloko-Honokohau, Pu'uuhonua-Honaunau National Historical Parks; and
Puukohola Heiau National Historic Site.
\2\ Yellowstone, Badlands, and Petrified Forest National Parks;
Lake Mead National Recreation Area; Navajo and Canyon de Chelly
National Monuments; and Mount Rushmore National Memorial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During November and December 2003, the NPS and the FAA developed
materials to aid in the NEPA scoping for nine\3\ park units, including
notices published in the Federal Register. In March 2004, notices were
published, public and agency scoping meetings were held, and NEPA
document preparation was begun.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The six Hawaii park units, Lake Mead NRA, Badlands NP, and
Mount Rushmore N Mem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The draft analysis of acoustic data for Hawaii Volcanoes National
Park was produced in May 2004. At the Implementation Plan meeting in
Fort Collins in June 2004, a preliminary process for evaluating public
comments and developing air tour management plan alternatives was
developed. These processes will also be included in the implementation
plan. Acoustic monitoring will begin this summer at Navajo National
Monument, Canyon de Chelly National Monument, Petrified Forest National
Park, and Glacier National Park. Collecting data this summer will allow
us to begin preparing the EA for these parks in 2005. This latest
monitoring exercise is a prime example of the type of sensible, cost-
effective, geographic clustering both agencies are pursuing.
INTERAGENCY COOPERATION
Consistent with the Administration's objective of encouraging
interagency collaboration in these matters, the Department of the
Interior and the NPS have been working closely with the FAA to
establish cooperative procedures for the preparation of air tour
management plans. We have worked hard together to improve what started
out as a challenging joint venture.
The January 2004 meeting, mentioned earlier in the testimony, was
very successful in improving the working relationship between the FAA
and NPS. Each agency made an effort to better understand the other
agency and its mandates. For example, the NPS learned that the FAA has,
on several occasions, been willing to mitigate even in situations where
adverse impacts are less than ``significant'' under NEPA and, under
certain conditions, is willing to do so for air tour management plans.
Likewise, the FAA learned that the NPS does not view all impacts as
necessarily ``adverse impacts'' or ``impairment'' under NEPA, as they
had previously thought, but rather, that our resource conservation
mandates require that we attempt to mitigate all adverse impacts not
just those that are significant. With the help from the President's
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the two agencies were able to
gain greater understanding of each other's core mission and the full
implications of the NPATMA. Perhaps most important, the agencies agreed
to adhere to the fundamental principal of ``agency expertise'' upon
which NEPA stands.
The NPS acknowledges the FAA's sole province over air safety, and
the FAA acknowledges the NPS authority and expertise regarding the
protection of park resources, and therefore on this basis, the FAA and
the NPS have agreed to jointly determine environmental impacts. This is
being done through the implementation plan and with a special FAA/NPS
workgroup on significant noise impacts. The NPS and the FAA have set up
various workgroups and subcommittees and plan to continue working
collaboratively to address issues as they arise. In fact, the two
agencies are also collaborating to address issues outside the scope of
this hearing including potential impacts from airport expansions, the
Grand Canyon legislation, and other sound-related issues.
STATUS OF TECHNICAL ISSUES
Another result of the January 2004 meeting was a closer technical
working relationship between the FAA and NPS, including the creation of
a workgroup to evaluate decisions on technical matters. The
methodologies and criteria that have traditionally been used to assess
the impact of aircraft noise do not adequately address the effects on
noise sensitive areas in national park units, where noise is very low
and a quiet setting is a generally recognized purpose and attribute.
Consequently, for air tour management plans, new methods are needed to
measure and establish baseline sound levels and to assess potential
impacts of air tour aircraft on national park units. The NPS Natural
Sounds Program and the FAA, with the assistance of the Volpe Center,
also have been working together to establish protocols, standards, and
instrumentation for the collection of acoustic data in parks for the
air tour management plan process.
The NPS and the Volpe Center agree that the following acoustic data
needs to be collected:
continuous, 1-second, one-third octave band (31 bands, 20-
20,000 Hz, at a minimum) sound pressure level,
very low-noise level (to near 0 dB),
meteorological (wind speed and direction), and
sources of sound.
Identification of sources of sound is needed to describe the park
soundscape, and to identify and manage inappropriate noise sources.
However, source identification is not yet available in all situations.
Source identification is generally done through attended logging or
playback of high-quality digital recordings, both of which are labor-
intensive. Automated processes for source identification will almost
certainly be available some time in the future, but that process is not
available at this time. However, a process for selecting measurement
locations has been established and both agencies agree that a thorough
understanding of acoustic variability (daily, seasonal, and annual),
and the resulting knowledge of appropriate measurement periods, will
not be available until long-term measurements are made. In order to
start the air tour management planning process and begin the study of
long-term variability, park-wide short-term studies will be initiated
(primarily by the Volpe Center), and limited long-term studies will be
initiated (primarily by the NPS). The NPS and the Volpe Center will
continue to work cooperatively on data collection and analysis methods
that can be used to characterize park soundscapes.
There is agreement between the NPS, the FAA, and the Volpe Center
regarding data collection, analysis, and reporting. While there is
general agreement on acoustic data issues, issues remain on how the
data is to be used to analyze potential impacts. One of the FAA and NPS
workgroups was formed to review and make recommendations on
determinations of significant and adverse noise impacts.
COST OF ANALYSIS AND SCHEDULE
Through the contract mentioned earlier in the testimony, the Volpe
Center is working to establish schedules and cost estimates for the
ATMPs. Both agencies acknowledge the need for flexibility in scheduling
ATMPs and have agreed to try to accommodate each park's peak visitor
periods and staff capacity to the greatest extent possible. The initial
schedule for EAs provided by the Volpe Center and the FAA was
ultimately revised in order to give the two agencies time to resolve
some over-arching issues. Tailoring the schedule has allowed us to
develop a much more prudent and effective approach to the ATMP EA
administration. The NPS will continue to work with the FAA and the
Volpe Center to increase efficiencies by identifying practical
geographic ``clusters'' of EAs that can be done together thus taking
advantage of economies of scale and location.
FUNDING
In the MOU, the NPS agreed to provide 40% of the cost of preparing
the air tour management plans, subject to the availability of funding.
Unlike the FAA, the NPS has had no line item budget for air tour
management activities. Current funding for the NPS Natural Sound
Program totals $918,000; this covers salary, travel, and basic expenses
for a small, centralized staff that is assisting parks and NPS
management with air tour management plans in addition to all other
issues related to sound or the FAA in parks. Approximately 80%-85% of
the entire Natural Sound Program budget is spent on the ATMP while the
remaining 15%-20% is shared to cover all other program components
including military overflights, park technical assistance requests,
airport expansion issues, the Grand Canyon Alternative Dispute
Resolution process, coordination of all other NPS sound issues,
outreach, education, partnerships, and interpretive work.
Based on the FAA's estimate of the cost of ATMP preparation, we
estimate the NPS's share ranges from $2-4 million annually (depending
on the number of parks). Our strategy for sharing the cost of preparing
ATMPs includes tapping into entrance fee based accounts and other
sources of project funding. Congress recently approved use of 20% fee
demonstration funding for air tour management plan work in several low
revenue parks. We continue to explore, with the FAA, ways to reduce
costs including clustering parks for the environmental analysis. The
schedule to date has reflected our mutual desire to be more efficient
when dealing with several parks in a geographic area.
EFFECT ON AIR TOUR OPERATORS
The effect of this legislation on existing air tour operators
depends on the extent to which an operator's air tour business may have
been constrained by the cap on air tour flights over units of the
national park system. Because we have not been able to permit any
flight increases above the legislated cap or new entrants, the effect
on some operators has likely been greater than either agency would have
preferred. The NPATMA requires that both the NPS and the FAA make
certain findings before the cap on air tour flights can be increased
and any new entrants are permitted. However, these findings cannot be
made without better data from the operators, which the FAA is working
to gather. Both the NPS and the FAA are working together on this issue.
That concludes my remarks. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Senator Akaka has arrived. Do you have a statement, sir?
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR
FROM HAWAII
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this timely hearing on the National Parks Air Tour
Management Act of 2000.
I know that you also have concerns about air tours over two
of your magnificent national parks, Mr. Chairman, Yellowstone
and Grand Teton National Parks. I look forward to working with
you on this issue.
I would like to extend my aloha to my longtime friend from
the islands, Mr. Dave Chevalier, President of Blue Hawaiian
Helicopters. He is a model 2 operator, tirelessly contributing
in positive ways to the development of the law and voluntarily
introducing quieter aircraft, among other activities. It is
good to see you here, Dave. Good to see you again.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, air tour management is an issue
that has a long history in Congress, Hawaii and other parts of
the Nation. The first congressional attempt to address the
problem was in 1987, the National Parks Overflights Act, which
required a report on the impact of overflights on national
parks. In the 102d and 103d Congresses, Congresswoman Patsy
Mink at that time, among others, sponsored legislation on air
tour overflights. I sponsored legislation in the 105th and
106th Congresses.
Residents and visitors to national parks in Hawaii are
vocal about the effects of air tours and the quality of
experiences and wildlife in Hawaii's national parks.
We had a series of devastating tour crashes in the early
1990's that caused all of us to look more closely at the
opportunity to manage the airspace over parks more wisely. I
worked very hard with the Hawaii helicopter operators'
Helicopter Association International, and Citizens Against
Noise, among many groups to find a middle ground that would
stem adverse effects on national parks and would not negatively
affect air tour operators.
In 1998, I joined forces with Senator John McCain and we
included the National Parks Air Tour Management Act as title 8
of the FAA Reauthorization Act. However, I am concerned that
over 4 years have passed since the law was enacted and not one
air tour management plan has been finalized.
Hawaii's Volcanoes and Haleakala National Parks are at the
top of the National Park Service's list for parks requiring air
tour management plans, followed by Lake Mead National
Recreational Area, and Mount Rushmore National Memorial.
Haleakala National Park has over 26,000 overflights per year
and 10 operators are flying tours. Hawaii Volcanoes has 24,500
flights and 12 operators flying helicopters.
Earlier this year, the FAA started the first 13 of a total
of 107 plans that need to be completed. There is a lot of work
still to be done.
During the 4 years since the law was enacted, I have heard
reports from a number of groups that the law was not being
implemented in a timely manner, that there are not enough data
to determine impacts, or that air tour operators were not
cooperating. I have also received reports of very positive
voluntary actions by air tour operators to address the concerns
that have been raised by park visitors.
I compliment each member of the national advisory group,
the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group, for their
dedication and hard work.
I commend the Federal Aviation Administration and the Park
Service for reaching important milestones promulgating
regulations that define a commercial air tour operation and
establishing an interim operating authority application process
for operators. These are valuable steps. It is not easy to
bring two agencies with disparate missions together to work on
a common mandate.
I hope the hearing today can shed light on some of the
problems and provide insight on opportunities to improve the
process of planning for air tour management over national
parks, particularly if action should be needed from Congress.
We have an excellent panel before us today. We have heard
you already and look forward to hearing the testimony of other
witnesses as well.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Senator. Glad that you are here.
I think it is clear that one of the principal questions and
reasons for being here is to talk about the schedule and the
timing and why it has taken as long as it has. I guess let me
ask you both. Is there a projected date for this process to be
completed?
Mr. Withycombe. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, I think I can speak
to that to some degree.
First of all, implementation of the legislation, which was
enacted in 2000, was delayed, unfortunately, by the events
surrounding
9/11. The Department of Transportation and the FAA focused
their attention on other rulemaking activities at that time.
The regulation eventually was published and became effective in
January 2003. That is roughly 17 months ago.
During that time period, we worked extensively with the
National Park Service on establishing some schedules and some
activities that would bring the two agencies together. As
pointed out by Senator Akaka, there are two separate missions
here and in order to do that, we had to overcome a number of
technical challenges and also mission assignments basically to
establish how we would work together.
This is a new program and new technical requirements and
environmental issues needed to be resolved.
We also needed to reach agreement on an acceptable
environmental purpose and need. That was a major issue over
which, as pointed out by my colleague, Paul Hoffman, we
attended a January meeting that was very helpful to us in
resolving some of those differences. I think it was a
breakthrough for us in achieving new levels of cooperation and
also working together to start the scoping process that needed
to be done environmentally in the nine parks that we had
targeted for completion.
As far as the projected schedule goes, our best estimates--
and these are just estimates at this point in time--are that we
need to overcome a couple of technical challenges, that is,
basically what is ``significant impact'' and how do we measure
noise. The two differences are what we are working on right now
through not only NPOAG but also through our technical experts.
We estimate that we could complete about 20 parks per year with
the resources that we currently have and also that we would
project our completion date, with roughly 100 parks, out about
5 years. That is the best estimate that we have right now.
Senator Thomas. So your first completion would be in how
long then?
Mr. Withycombe. The nine parks that we have targeted this
year we estimate will be completed through the environmental
process, establishment of ATMP, and also the rulemaking action
that goes with that, in 2005, sometime in 2005 for those nine
parks.
Senator Thomas. A year from now.
Mr. Secretary, any different view than that?
Mr. Hoffman. No, no substantially different view. I liken
it to building a house. The first thing you want is a good,
solid foundation on which to build the rest of the house, and
it took us a little while, but that is what we have been doing
over the last 18 months, is developing that solid foundation on
which we build the rest of these plans. We are going to stay
committed to the process and start chunking them out as well as
we can, given the resources we have, and both human and
financial resources available.
Senator Thomas. I presume that you have some good general
criteria that apply everywhere and then specifically to each
park as it is applied there. Is that generally right?
Mr. Hoffman. Right. We have been reaching agreement on some
of the core principles, as you say, that would apply to any
park, but then you also have a different set of facts, almost a
unique circumstance under which you measure sound and the
impacts that differs from each park. So there is some
complicated analysis that is required for each different park
and some measurements that need to be taken to establish
baselines as well before we can really do a thorough and
defensible analysis of those impacts.
Senator Thomas. So you are suggesting that out of the 388
parks, there are 107 of them that will be interested in having
overflights. Is that it?
Mr. Hoffman. I believe there are 107 that have overflight
operations.
Mr. Withycombe. Yes. The application process is essentially
giving initial operating authority to the current operators who
have air tours based upon their number of flights that they had
prior to the act. Those indicate that we have roughly 107 parks
that they are operating in now based upon those applications.
I might add that we are going back to verify those
applications again to make sure that we have good numbers from
the operators. That is part of the NPOAG recommendation that
was given to us. We are going back to work through them to
establish a method to do that, and also to work with the Park
Service in this effort as well.
Senator Thomas. If it takes about a year to do nine, then
it is going to take you 10 or 12 years to do them all. Is that
correct?
Mr. Withycombe. The best estimate that we could give, as I
mentioned before, is about 20 parks per year, given the
resources and the ability to do this in a timely way. If there
are 100 parks remaining, that would be about 5 years.
Senator Thomas. It seemed that once you had set the
criteria, that the determination of applicability to each park
would be relatively easier and that you all would not have to
be involved in every one. The parks can kind of make their own
judgment based on your criteria, can they not?
You talk about 11 September, but nevertheless this is 4
years, and by the time you are through, it is going to be 15
years before this is done. That seems like a pretty incredible
length of time to do something, does it not?
Mr. Withycombe. You make a good point, Mr. Chairman.
Obviously, we would like to do as many of these as we possibly
could. We are studying ways in which we could possibly group
these under one environmental study. That is not out of reason.
We are obviously looking at ways in which we could do this more
efficiently as well. But it is an environmental process done
under the national standards for environmental reviews, and
those do take time to complete and report. They then become
part of a rulemaking action, which the FAA intends to enforce,
to establish routes and altitudes in these national parks.
Senator Thomas. I am sure it is tougher than it seems, but
it looks like if you can determine what a 5,000 foot elevation
does, it does the same thing in several parks. It does not seem
like it is a whole, brand new experiment every time you go into
it, is it?
Mr. Hoffman. Well, actually you would be surprised at how
disparate the analysis can be, depending on the topography of
the park, or the size of the park, or the type of aircraft that
are flying. There are certain standards that you can apply to
every one of these ATMP's, and then there is site-specific
analysis that is necessary. Of course, the act requires FAA to
be involved. So I do not believe FAA can just sort of hand it
off to us.
I have to say that the resources to do these ATMP's even on
the schedule the FAA is suggesting is going to be challenging
for us to find.
Senator Thomas. Does the Park Service have their 40 percent
now?
Mr. Hoffman. We are finding the 40 percent through rec fee
moneys. In those parks that have fees, out of the 80 percent
funds; in those parks that do not have fees, out of the 20
percent fund.
Senator Thomas. Why would you want air traffic over Mount
Rushmore? There are some places where you are not going to fly,
are there not?
Mr. Hoffman. Well, there have been small helicopter tours
and I suppose fixed wing tours over Mount Rushmore for a number
of years, and visitors like seeing----
Senator Thomas. They like seeing the back of their heads.
Mr. Hoffman. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thomas. Senator.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Withycombe, as you noted in your testimony, by enacting
the Air Tour Management Act Congress intended to mitigate or
prevent significant adverse impacts to park resources from air
tour operations.
We hear many things. One of the concerns I have heard is
that in implementing this act, the FAA is focused on airspace
management issues instead of addressing the potential impacts
on park resources.
How do you respond to that concern and what action is the
FAA taking to ensure that the congressional intent behind this
act is met?
Mr. Withycombe. Senator Akaka, our mission basically is to
ensure safety of the air tour operations over the national
parks in this particular legislation. Aviation safety is our
mission throughout the FAA. We are focused in this particular
instance on ensuring the safety of operations for those people
that are using air tours to see the national parks.
We also are looking, of course, at the environmental impact
of those operations. As part of our plan, we are doing the
required environmental analyses that are part of those studies.
We intend to make a thorough study of each of these parks
through noise analysis, through safety analysis, and the
establishment of safe air tour routes over and around the
National Park System. So we are concerned with both safety and
the environment in this particular case.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Withycombe, my second question involves
the Kalaupapa site in Hawaii. As you know, Kalaupapa is not
only a national historical park but also a very sensitive
cultural site. I have heard from the residents of Kalaupapa
that they oppose commercial air tours over the settlement.
Kalaupapa is currently one of the initial park sites that is
being studied by your agency.
What can I tell the residents to reassure them that FAA
will be sensitive to their concerns during the planning and
decision-making process?
Mr. Withycombe. Senator, we have just recently completed a
number of focus meetings with Kapuna groups. We met also with
the patient community in Kalaupapa. We also have heard the
concerns they have voiced to us during those hearings. Those
will all be considered as part of our environmental impact
study, and we will be careful about whatever process takes
place there.
We have a range of options under that process, based upon
the impact that the community senses and reports to us. We also
take comments from the air tour operators and the general
public that may surround the park itself. Our goal is to find
some middle ground or exercise whatever option we need to do
based upon the input that we get. Hopefully that input will
provide some reasonable answer to the concerns that have been
raised.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Hoffman, I would like to ask how
national park resource impacts are to be analyzed and measured
as part of the environmental assessments. I understand that one
of the reasons for the delay in implementing this act is the
difficulty of defining what constitutes a significant adverse
impact.
My question is, have both agencies come to agreement on
what constitutes a significant adverse impact, and how is it
defined and how do you know when it has occurred?
Mr. Hoffman. Well, Senator, you have hit on the key
challenge to managing any national park unit in terms of
determining when is an impact an impairment or when is an
impact just an impact.
We have reached agreement that the standard that the FAA is
required under the law to use as significant adverse impact. In
the National Park Service, we use the standard of impairment,
where impacts may occur so long as they do not rise to the
level of impairing the resources and impeding the enjoyment of
those resources by future generations.
We are working closely with the FAA on managing issues that
may arise to less than significant impacts. For instance, in
some parks, larger parks or a cultural park like Kalaupapa,
where natural quiet is an expectation, we may want to manage to
a finer threshold, if you will, of allowing impacts on those
kinds of parks versus other parks where there is less
expectation on the part of the visitor or less impact on the
resource as a result of those sounds.
So it is a park-to-park analysis. It is resource-to-
resource. It is a cultural resource-to-cultural resource
analysis that needs to take place, and each plan will be an
independent decision.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Hoffman, under the Air Tour Management
Act, the Park Service is the cooperating agency to the FAA
which has the lead role in developing air tour plans. However,
the Park Service's Organic Act mandates the service to manage
natural and cultural resources so that they are unimpaired for
the enjoyment of future generations. That is a quote. Does the
Park Service, with cooperative agency status, have sufficient
legal authority to make a determination whether there are
significant adverse effects?
Mr. Hoffman. Well, sir, the act designates the FAA as the
lead organization in the NEPA analysis, and we have deferred to
them on the funding side of it. But on the impact analysis, we
have agreed that we will work cooperatively even though the act
specifies the FAA as the lead agency and the Park Service as a
cooperating agency, which is a role we play quite often in
other NEPA analyses, and we believe we have played that role
and quite successfully protected resources from being impaired
in that role. But in this particular case where both agencies
have to sign off on any NEPA document that is produced, we have
agreed in principle that we will work cooperatively in the
determination and mitigation of any impacts.
Senator Akaka. Let me give Mr. Withycombe a chance to
reply.
Mr. Withycombe. Senator, I would agree with the statement
that Mr. Hoffman just made. We have required as part of our
plan, and also part of the legislation that was passed through
Congress, that both agencies would sign the environmental
documents. This means that a cooperative arrangement has to be
in place between the two agencies to reach agreement to settle
on the environmental impact of that particular park.
I might also add that we are working together cooperatively
to better define what significant impact actually is. We
obviously have technical issues that we have to work through in
that arena and we are in the midst of the environmental process
in those nine parks. That is an important piece which we will
have to finish in order to complete those first nine parks.
This will then lead into the other parks that we have to do
throughout the country.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for your responses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Welcome, Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thank you very much.
Senator Thomas. Do you have any statement or questions at
this point?
Senator Alexander. Excuse me for being late. I had to
preside which goes to junior Members of the U.S. Senate. So
that is how I was picked for that honor.
Is this the first panel?
Senator Thomas. The first panel. We are going right away to
the second panel.
Senator Alexander. If I may ask one question and make a
short statement.
Senator Thomas. Certainly.
Senator Alexander. I am extremely interested in the idea of
helicopters in the Great Smoky Mountains. That has been hotly
debated in the State of Tennessee. We have often talked in this
committee about the differences between the East and the West,
and one difference is we do not have that much Federal land in
the East and in the West the Federal Government owns a
disproportionate amount. Also, we have lots of travel in the
East. The Smokies, as an example, has 9 million or 10 million
visitors a year. Yellowstone might have 3 million or something
like that, if I remember, primarily because we are just in the
middle of a lot of people.
Smokies is also managed as if it were a wilderness area.
There is only one road through it. Most everyone within our
region likes that. We have plenty of commercial activity
outside the area but not inside. So the prevailing view in our
State is that we like the idea of having, in the midst of all
our commerce, 500,000 acres that is, as free as possible, of
commerce and noise, and we prefer peace and tranquility. That
is why in 1992 our State legislature passed a law outlawing the
siting of heliports within the 9 miles of the Great Smoky
Mountain National Park. Their hope was that that would
discourage flying over the Smokies. That has been upheld.
I am informed there are two heliports today doing
helicopter tours of the Smokies. They are located more than 9
miles away from the Great Smokies. So I assume that would
comply with the State law. But I wonder if those two heliports
are complying with the National Parks Air Tour Management Act
of 2000. Are they in compliance with the Federal law? Have they
filed the appropriate application forms and followed the
procedures? What can either of you gentlemen tell me about
those two heliports?
Mr. Withycombe. Well, sir, I would definitely have to get
back to you on that particular issue. I am not sure exactly
what kind of operation we have there. I would have to consult
our experts that have reviewed those applications and verify
whether or not those operators are in compliance with our
regulations and our requirements for certification.
Our intent obviously in the Great Smoky Mountain area would
be the same as we do for any other national park where we have
operators who wish to operate there. That process would be a
complete review of their plans, taking a look at their
applications and making sure that they are, in fact, operating
within a half a mile of the national park. If that is the case,
that would start an air tour management plan process, which we
would then environmentally study, in consultation with the
National Park Service. We would definitely look at the impact
of those operations. That environmental process would provide
us with public input. Anybody that had an interest in this
operational application would be able to comment and provide us
their concerns. Those concerns would be taken into account, and
as I mentioned to Senator Akaka, we would look at a full range
of options that we have, all the way from no operations over
the national park to setting up specific routes that reduce the
impact below significant or maybe even less than that.
Senator Alexander. Mr. Hoffman, do you know whether those
two heliports are in compliance with the Act of 2000?
Mr. Hoffman. I do not know about those two specific
heliports, but the act does provide for interim operating
authority for those operations that were in operation at the
time the act was passed, and those authorities extend until
such time as there is an air tour management plan and
associated regulation in place. So if they were operating at
the time of the act and if they filed with the FAA for interim
operating authority, then they are operating under the Act. But
I do not know the specific fact base around that.
Senator Alexander. Well, I will not ask you to repeat what
you have already said. What I would like to ask is that each of
you let the subcommittee know and me know whether at this time
the heliports operating in the area of the Great Smoky
Mountains are in compliance with the terms of the Act of 2000.
That would be the first thing.
And then second, I look forward, Mr. Chairman, to hearing
the remaining discussions and comments. I will certainly listen
to arguments that are made. But my strong bias and I believe
the strong bias--and I say this not only as the U.S. Senator
from Tennessee, but as a resident of Tennessee who lives within
2 miles of the Great Smoky Mountain National Park. The strong
bias of most people in the area is that the park itself ought
to be preserved. It is generally managed as if it were a
wilderness area and that is dramatically disturbed by the noise
of helicopters. So that is my bias. I want to listen to the
testimony today, and I look forward to keeping up with your
efforts to implement the act and I am grateful to the chairman
for calling this hearing.
Mr. Withycombe. Mr. Chairman, if I may just add a comment
to this. Senator, my colleagues here tell me that we have
received applications for operations over the Smoky Mountains
National Park. There are probably the two operations that you
referred to. It is really the operators that must come into
compliance rather than the heliports themselves, and as pointed
out by Paul Hoffman representing the National Park Service
here, we basically have what we call an initial operating
authority process which once they apply to us, if they have
flown over that park before, they are automatically given
authority to continue that operation until we look at the air
tour management plan process.
Senator Alexander. Thank you. I appreciate the
clarification. I would still appreciate if you could just send
me a letter letting me know the status then of the operators,
if it is the operation to which the act applies rather than the
heliports.
Mr. Withycombe. We will do that, Senator.
[The letter follows:]
Department of Transportation,
Federal Aviation Administration,
Washington, DC, August 11, 2004.
Hon. Lamar Alexander,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: Commercial Air Tour Operations at Great Smoky Mountains National
Park
Dear Senator Alexander: This letter is in response to your request
for additional information during the July 22, 2004 hearing on
implementation of the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000
(Act), before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Subcommittee on National Parks. I testified on behalf of the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) about our work with the National Park
Service to implement the Act. During the hearing, you requested that we
provide information on an issue raised by another witness, Mr. Charles
Maynard, regarding two air tour operators that were allegedly in
violation of the Act by conducting commercial air tour operations over
the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (Park) without FAA operating
authority.
We have looked into the matter and have found that there are two
existing operators conducting commercial air tours over the Park. Great
Smoky Mountain Helicopter, Inc.--doing business as Smoky Mountain
Helicopters--has been authorized 120 annual air tour operations by the
FAA for the Park, and Rambo Helicopter Charter, Inc.--doing business as
Scenic Helicopter Tours--has been authorized 1800 annual air tour
operations by the FAA for the park.
The statement at the hearing that there were two additional
operators at the Park turns out to be incorrect. The apparent
confusion, we believe, can be attributed to the fact that the two
operators conduct their business under different names than their
corporate names. We have confirmed this finding with Mr. Charles
Maynard and with the National Park Service. Additionally, you had
inquired whether the location of a heliport has any bearing on whether
or not the operators comply with the Act. Under the provisions of the
Act, it does not.
I hope this information is helpful to you and your staff. If you
have further questions or require additional information, please
contact David Balloff of the FAA's Office of Government and Industry
Affairs at 202-267-3277.
Sincerely,
William C. Withycombe,
Regional Administrator for the Western-Pacific Region.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. I think, Senator, as we have talked about
before, you are asking about compliance. The requirements are
not set yet for compliance. They are allowed to go as they
were, but they have not yet designed what they have to comply
with.
One very quick one, Paul. There are current users. There
are current people making flights.
Mr. Hoffman. Yes.
Senator Thomas. Do they pay something into the park for
doing this?
Mr. Hoffman. There are certainly certain parks where they
pay a fee, but there is no authority for the parks to pursue
the collection of that fee. It is more or less a voluntary fee
that is paid.
Senator Thomas. It would be a good way to get your $20
million.
In any event, all right, thank you. Let us go on to our
next set of panelists. Thank you, gentlemen. Appreciate it.
Next, we have Mr. Roy Resavage, president, Helicopter
Association International, Alexandria, Virginia; Mr. Charles
Maynard, former director, Friends of the Smokies, Jonesboro,
Tennessee; Mr. David Chevalier, owner, Blue Hawaiian
Helicopters, in a town in Hawaii which I cannot pronounce; and
Mr. Don Barger, senior director, Southeast District, National
Parks and Conservation Association, Knoxville, Tennessee. Thank
you, gentlemen, for being here.
Your total statements will go in the record. If you could
hold your comments to 5 minutes, we would appreciate that very
much. We would like to start with you, Mr. Resavage.
STATEMENT OF ROY RESAVAGE, PRESIDENT, HELICOPTER ASSOCIATION
INTERNATIONAL, ALEXANDRIA, VA
Mr. Resavage. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Akaka, and Senator Alexander. My name is Roy Resavage. I
am president of the Helicopter Association International.
HAI fully supports the ATMP process and we believe that
great strides have been made since this project commenced many
years ago. However, all the major stakeholders are disappointed
in the rate of progress to date and few are optimistic about
the prospect of an accelerated schedule in the future.
The air tour experience has become a highlight for many
visitors to our national parks. HAI members fly the vast
majority of helicopter tours over national parks, and we have a
vested interest in providing a memorable, safe experience for
our customers. Air tours are arguably one of the most
environmentally friendly ways to view the wonders of our
national parks. They are not just a passing fad. HAI
acknowledges that we share these magnificent natural treasures
with the local residents, Native Americans, visitors who prefer
to view the experience from buses, trains, cars, rafts, hiking
trails, as well as the animals that inhabit the parks.
The National Park Overflight Working Group was created as a
mediating tool to bring these diverse interest groups, the
Federal Aviation Agency, and the National Park Service to the
bargaining table. This was not an easy process and the initial
meetings were notable for their lack of civility as all
advocates zealously pursued their own myopic points of view. It
took a great deal of courage and patience in the early stages,
but consensus was eventually reached on most items that
appeared so inflammatory at the beginning of the process.
Implementation of ATMP's was predicted to be close at hand. No
one felt that they ahead achieved all their goals, which is
probably a good indicator that tough compromises were achieved.
HAI and its members were part of the National Parks
Overflights Advisory Group process from the very beginning and
we still are very involved today. Everything seemed to be on
track for the implementation of the ATMP, but many things went
terribly wrong. The heated debates between the traditional
adversaries gave way to a morass between the two major
agencies, the FAA and the National Park Service. Incredible
delays developed over definitional terms, which would be the
lead agency, who would have the final veto authority, who was
going to pay the bills. These were not trivial issues to the
agencies involved, and the clock kept ticking while
wordsmithing and legal maneuvering took place.
All of these delays have had a chilling effect on the
expansion of responsible air tour operations. The initial goal
was to complete the ATMP's for the national parks in 2 years.
Why did this not happen? It could be argued that the bar was
just set too high and that completion of such an enormous
project in 2 years was an extremely naive undertaking. In fact,
the expectations far exceeded capabilities. However, a great
deal of the delay has been self-induced.
Delays on where the first ATMP would be beta tested,
decisions on how sound was to be measured, where to place the
microphones, what constitutes unacceptable noise and to whom
still remain unanswered questions.
How many parks require an ATMP? The number keeps growing
and is a moving target. The cost of the envisioned studies
could easily exceed $1 million per park. With over 100 parks,
where will the money come from? How long will it take to
accomplish the ATMP process for each park? To our knowledge,
the Park Service still has not obligated their original
budgetary requirements.
Air tour operators remain in limbo as this endless parade
of irresolvable challenges block the path of progress. Parks
that are not currently supporting air tours are off limits.
Quotas have been arbitrarily set at an unjustifiably low level.
Until recently there was no official guidance as to how an
operator could obtain interim operating authority. New operator
entry is virtually impossible to obtain without acquiring the
certificate of an existing operator.
HAI and its members believe that moving forward with the
ATMP process is in everyone's interest. The current situation
is anti-competitive at best and would be the subject of ethical
scrutiny if under the control of private enterprise.
HAI respectfully requests that Congress intervene in the
situation and require the respective agencies to honor their
charter, fund them as necessary, and offer incentives for
solutions that address what really needs to be done to protect
the public's interest. Perhaps it is time to review the current
process, abandon some bad science assumptions, and look to
appropriate computer modeling and give credit for quiet
technology advancements.
Most of the air tour operators are small businessmen and
women already governed by a mountain of regulatory guidance.
They want to do the right thing but they are forced to remain
on the sidelines while the two major Titans engage in combat
over who will reign supreme. It is time to move forward and
give the parks back to the people.
Thank you very much for my time and I will be happy to
answer any questions at the appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Resavage follows:]
Prepared Statement of Roy Resavage, President,
Helicopter Association International
Good afternoon, Chairman Thomas, Ranking Member Akaka, and Members
of the Subcommittee. My name is Roy Resavage, and I am President of The
Helicopter Association International (HAI). It is an honor for me to
appear before the Senate National Parks Subcommittee today to discuss
helicopter air tour industry concerns over the air tour management plan
(ATMP) process. I respectfully request that my remarks be included in
the official committee record.
HAI fully supports the ATMP process, and we believe that great
strides have been made since this project commenced many years ago.
However, all of the major stakeholders must be disappointed in the rate
of progress to date, and few are optimistic about the prospect of a
significantly accelerated schedule in the future.
The air tour experience has become a highlight for many visitors to
our National Parks, including the Grand Canyon. HAI members fly the
vast majority of helicopter tours over national parks. We have a vested
interest in providing a memorable, safe experience for our customers.
Air tours are arguably one of the most environmentally friendly ways to
view the wonders of our national parks, they are not just a passing
fad, and we want to work in harmony with the other important
stakeholders. HAI acknowledges that we share these magnificent natural
treasures with the local residents, Native Americans, visitors who
prefer to view the experience from buses, trains, cars, rafts and
hiking trails, as well as the animals that inhabit the parks.
The National Parks Oversight Advisory Group (NPOAG) was created as
a mediating tool to bring these diverse interest groups, the Federal
Aviation Agency (FAA) and the National Park Service (NPS) to the
bargaining table. This was not an easy process and the initial meetings
were notable for their lack of civility as all advocates zealously
pursued their own myopic points of view. It took a great deal of
courage and patience in the early stages, but consensus was eventually
reached on most items that appeared so inflammatory in the beginning.
An ATMP was created and its implementation was predicted to be close at
hand. No one felt that they had achieved all of their goals, which is
probably a good indicator that tough compromises were achieved.
HAI and its members were part of this NPOAG process from the very
beginning and today a former Chairman of the HAI Board of Directors,
Elling Halvorson, carries on that tradition. Everything seemed to be on
track for the implementation of the ATMP, but many things went terribly
wrong. The heated debates between the traditional adversaries gave way
to a morass between the two major agencies the FAA and the NPS.
Incredible delays developed over definitional terms, who the lead
agency was, who had final veto authority and who was going to pay the
bill. These were not trivial issues to the agencies involved, and the
clock kept ticking while wordsmithing and legal maneuvering took place.
All of these delays have had a chilling effect on the expansion of
responsible air tour operations. The initial goal was to complete ATMPS
for the national parks in two years. Why didn't this happen? It could
be argued that the bar was set too high, and completion of such an
enormous project in two years was an extremely naive undertaking. That
probably does explain some of the delay; expectations exceeded
capabilities. However, a great deal of the delay has been self-induced.
Delays on where the first ATMP would be beta tested added unneeded time
to the process. Decisions on how sound was to be measured, where to
place the microphones, what constitutes unacceptable noise and to whom,
remain unanswered questions. How many parks require an ATMP, the number
keeps growing and is a moving target. The cost of the envisioned
studies could easily exceed $1,000,000 per park. With over a 100 parks,
where will the money come from? How long will it take to accomplish the
ATMP process for each park? To our knowledge, the Park Service has not
obligated their original budgetary requirements. The published
shortfall in the future Park Service budget, allowing only for the
maintenance of safe and healthy parks, is the topic of media
speculation on a daily basis.
Air tour operators remain in limbo as this endless parade of
unsolvable challenges block the path of progress. Parks that are not
currently supporting air tours are off limits; Quotas have been
arbitrarily set at unjustly low levels. Until recently there was no
official guidance as to how an operator could obtain interim operating
authority. New operator entry is virtually impossible to obtain without
acquiring the certificate of an existing operator.
HAI and its members believe that moving forward with the ATMP
process is in everyone's interest. The current situation is anti-
competitive at best, and would be the subject of ethical scrutiny if it
were under the control of private enterprise. HAI respectfully requests
that Congress intervene in this situation and require the respective
agencies to honor their charter, fund them as necessary, and offer
incentives for solutions that address what really needs to be done to
protect the public's interest. Perhaps it's time to review the current
process, abandon bad science assumptions regarding noise propagation,
and avoid the expensive of millions of dollars and months of data
gathering and look to appropriate computer modeling.
Most of the air tour operators are small businessmen and women who
are already governed by a mountain of regulatory guidance. They want to
do the right thing, but they are forced to remain on the sidelines
while the two major Titans engage in combat over who will reign
supreme. It's time to move forward and give the parks back to the
people.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chevalier.
STATEMENT OF DAVID J. CHEVALIER, CEO, BLUE HAWAIIAN
HELICOPTERS, KAHULUI, HI
Mr. Chevalier. Good afternoon, Chairman Thomas, Ranking
Member Akaka, aloha. Senator Alexander. My name is David
Chevalier. I am the CEO of Blue Hawaiian Helicopters.
I was a member of the original National Park Overflight
Working Group which reached the consensus upon which this law
was based. It was a difficult process to reach consensus
between aviation and the environmental groups, as we seem to
hold diametrically opposing interests. I do not believe we
would have been able to reach these agreements had it not been
without a professional moderator's help.
I believe the same situation now exists between the FAA and
the National Park Service. It appears to me the process is
broken or at least slow as molasses. I think that an
independent professional moderator should oversee and
facilitate action between these two very different
bureaucracies.
While the National Park Advisory Group is a very valuable
consulting resource on the civil side in this process, it does
not drive the boat. The FAA and the National Park Service
should be given a firm time line for completion of tasks, and a
professional moderator between the FAA and National Park
Service decisionmakers should be immediately utilized whenever
an impasse is reached.
While the aviation representatives argued against
restrictions as to the manner in which Americans choose to view
their parks, we ultimately compromised in an agreement that the
number of flights would be frozen until the interim management
plan process was complete. This you wrote into law. While I
personally disagree with these interim restrictions and would
vote to change that law, it is imperative that the established
law be followed. There was always concern by the NPOWG over the
enforcement of this law.
Hawaii was chosen as a place to begin the process because
of a voluntary and successful air tour management plan that was
already in place at Haleakala and to a lesser extent at
Volcanoes. When the law came in place, operators received a
questionnaire. We were asked the number of flights that we had
conducted over a specified time period to figure out exactly
how many we would be allowed to do through the interim process
until the interim management plans were complete.
Well, as far as I know, no air tour company yet to date has
been audited to assure the accuracy of those numbers given. It
would have been an easy task to verify the numbers of
overflights by the $25 per overflight fee payment history for
Volcanoes National Park. It became evident that a number of air
tour companies are not paying any overflight fees, as I believe
is required by law. But apparently there certainly is no
mechanism in the law to collect these fees. As it stands now,
this law does not have any teeth. Air tour companies should be
audited to prove the number of overflight slots claimed, as
well as show proof of payment of those flights. I would suggest
you either enforce that law or change it.
A different standard exists for air tour visitors than
ground visitors at most of our Nation's national parks. While
we must not lose sight of the legitimacy of air tour visitors
to view the park from the air, neither should we lose sight of
their responsibility to pay an equal entry fee as ground based
visitors do.
As this is an airspace issue, the FAA is the rightful lead
agency and the NPS the cooperating agency in the development of
the plans. However, considering the interests of the two
bureaucracies, I think the NPS must be the watchdog of any air
tour management plan.
As a fill-in at the last advisory group meeting at Lake
Mead, I had suggested that each tour aircraft be required to
carry a transponder which would broadcast its own discrete code
and that this would be recorded automatically on a ground-based
NPS computer. The computer would then track in real time the
location of each aircraft within the specified boundaries of
the park. Routes and overflight counts could be recorded
automatically. This is an objective management tool that is
widely employed now by trucking companies. Similarly, the FAA
has been moving toward ADSB technology in the lower 48 States.
Implement flight tracking and enforcement of any plan is
substantially complete. NPS forwards an unexplained deviation
of an ATMP to the FAA. The FAA then investigates and takes
appropriate action where necessary. I think, though, more often
than not, that this is going to absolve air tour operators of
accusations of noncompliance by citizens.
Technology is also available whereby overflight billings
could go out automatically and this in conjunction with this
tracking system. I think that overflight fees should go first
to pay for the tracking equipment and second to the general
fund of the park.
It must be recognized that air tour operations in many
areas of the country have made significant voluntary efforts to
minimize noise impacts to ground visitors at national parks.
Nevertheless, we can do better by adopting quiet technology
aircraft. Although there are incentives mandated by this law to
adopt quiet technology, there is a problem. As yet, there is no
established guideline for what constitutes a quiet technology
aircraft. The advisory group has recently been given the
assignment of recommending these guidelines. I question their
technical ability to be able to do this without the help of an
expert group such as Volpe. In any case, I think these
guidelines should have been established a long time ago and it
needs to happen very soon.
Quiet technology will not only help reduce noise impacts at
national parks but over the neighborhoods that we must traverse
as well. Until these two agencies complete their responsibility
to establish guidelines, there is no incentive for any company
to make a large investment in aircraft that might not meet the
definition. Operators need assurance of which aircraft will be
acceptable for the incentives mandated by this law. It takes
substantial time to plan for these kind of major acquisitions.
So all I ask is please set a deadline for the definition of
quiet technology aircraft.
Thanks for listening.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chevalier follows:]
Prepared Statement of David J. Chevalier, CEO, Blue Hawaiian
Helicopters
Good afternoon, Chairman Thomas, Ranking Member Akaka, and Members
of the Subcommittee. My name is David Chevalier, and I am the CEO of
Blue Hawaiian Helicopters. I was a member of the National Park
Overflight Working Group (NPOWG), which reached a landmark consensus
agreement between environmental, Native American and aviation interests
and upon which Public Law 106-181 is based. Many times, over many hours
of debate, one side or the other was ready to walk out and call the
exercise a failure.
It was a difficult process to reach consensus between the aviation
and environmental groups as we seemed to hold diametrically opposing
interests. I don't believe that we would have been able to reach the
agreements that we did without a professional moderator. I believe the
same situation exists now between the FAA and the NPS. It appears to me
that the process is broken. I believe that an independent, professional
moderator should oversee and facilitate action between these two very
different bureaucracies.
While the NPOAG is a valuable consulting resource in this process,
it does not drive the boat. The FAA and the NPS should be given a firm
timeline for completion of tasks, and a professional moderator between
the FAA and NPS decision makers should be immediately utilized when an
impasse is reached.
Although the NPOWG came from opposing positions, we arrived at a
consensus that air tour passengers are legitimate visitors to the
National Parks and that the impacts of both ground visitors as well as
air tours on this resource must be mitigated.
One of the most contentious issues that we faced was the limitation
on the number of National Park overflights. While the aviation
representatives argued against restrictions as to the manner in which
Americans choose to view their parks, we ultimately compromised on an
agreement that the number of flights would be frozen until the Air Tour
Management Plan (ATMP) process was complete. This became incorporated
into the law.
While I still disagree with these interim restrictions and would
vote to change the law, it is imperative that the established law be
followed. There was always a concern by the NPOWG over the method of
enforcing this law. Hawaii was chosen as the place to begin this
process because a voluntary and successful air tour management plan was
already in place at Haleakala National Park. Operators received a
questionnaire as to the number of flights that had been conducted over
the National Parks in a specified time period prior to implementation
of this law. This was to assist the FAA in establishing the number of
flights that would be allowed until the ATMP process is complete
(Interim Operating Authority).
No air tour company has yet been audited to assure the accuracy of
those numbers. It would have been a simple task to verify the number of
overflights by the $25/overflight payment history for Volcanoes
National Park. It has become evident that a number of air tour
companies are not paying any overflight fees as is required by law. No
mechanism in the law exists to collect these fees. As it now stands,
that law has no teeth. Air Tour companies should be audited to prove
the number of overflight slots claimed, as well as to show proof of
payment for those flights. Change the law or enforce it.
A different standard exists for air tour visitors than ground
visitors at most of our nations' national parks. One must not lose
sight of the legitimacy of air tour visitors to the park or their
responsibility to pay the same fees as are required of ground based
visitors.
As this is an airspace issue, the FAA is the rightful lead agency,
and the NPS the cooperating agency in the development of the ATMP's.
However, considering the interests of the two bureaucracies, the NPS
must be the watchdog of any ATMP. As a fill-in at the last NPOAG
meeting at Lake Meade, I suggested that each tour aircraft be required
to carry a transponder which would broadcast its' own discrete code and
that this would be recorded automatically on a ground-based NPS
computer. The computer would then track, in real time, the location of
each aircraft within the specified boundaries of the National Park.
Routes and overflight counts could be recorded automatically. This is
an objective management tool which is widely employed by trucking
companies. Similarly, the FAA is already moving toward ADSB technology
in the lower 48 states. Implement flight tracking, and enforcement of
any plan is substantially complete. NPS then forwards any unexplained
deviation of an ATMP to the FAA, the FAA then investigates, and
appropriate enforcement action is taken.
More often than not, I believe that this will absolve air tour
operators from false allegations of non-compliance by citizens.
Technology is available whereby overflight fee billings could go out
automatically. I believe that the overflight fees should go first to
pay for the tracking equipment and second to the general fund of the
park.
It must be recognized that air tour operators in many areas of the
country have made significant, voluntary efforts to minimize noise
impacts to ground visitors at National Parks. Nevertheless, we can do
better by adopting quiet technology aircraft. Although there are
incentives mandated by this law to adopt quiet technology, there are
problems. As yet there is no established guideline for a definition of
a ``quiet technology aircraft''. The NPOAG has recently been given the
assignment of recommending these guidelines. I question their technical
ability to do this without professional help from an expert group, such
as Volpe. In any case, these guidelines should have been established
shortly after incentives were mandated.
Quiet Technology aircraft will not only help reduce noise impacts
at the National Parks, but over the neighborhoods we must often
traverse as well. Until these two agencies complete their
responsibility to establish such guidelines, there is no incentive for
any company to make large investments in aircraft that might not meet
the definition. Operators need assurance of which aircraft will be
acceptable for the incentives mandated by this law. Companies need
substantial time to plan for such major acquisitions. Please set a
deadline for the qualification of Quiet Technology aircraft.
Thank you for your time.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Mr. Maynard.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. MAYNARD, MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL PARKS
OVERFLIGHT ADVISORY GROUP
Mr. Maynard. Chairman Thomas and Ranking Member Akaka and
Senator Alexander, thank you for this time to present my views
on the Air Tour Management Act and its enforcement.
I became interested in this issue of commercial overflights
of national parks due to my work at the Great Smokies and in
Yellowstone and the Grand Tetons. For over a decade, the
National Park Service and the Federal Aviation Administration
struggled over jurisdiction and impacts concerning air tours
over our national parks.
I was a member of that original National Parks Overflight
Working Group that continued to wrestle with those same issues.
The group finally came to a consensus about a process that was
incorporated into the National Parks Air Tour Management Act.
All members of the group agreed that national parks were
special places for our country. They also agreed that one
regulation would not fit every unit in the National Park
System. At that point, the process of an air tour management
plan was conceived. Safety and resource impact concerns could
be determined on a park-by-park basis with input from local,
regional, and national perspectives.
Since the act was passed, it appears that the two agencies
have continued to struggle over those same issues: jurisdiction
and impacts. The two agencies have assigned capable staff who
seem to work well together. I am not convinced that there was
good collaboration at the beginning of the process, but I will
say in the past year, the pace has picked up and the two teams
seem to be working better together. I think we had a very slow
start that delayed some of the implementation far beyond all of
our expectations.
I am concerned that existing and new entrants are not being
held to a standard that has been agreed upon through an air
tour management plan due to the delay of the development of
those plans. The issue of verification still seems to be in a
gray area, as my friend Dave has mentioned. How do we verify
information supplied by the operator or by those on the ground?
I am also sure that other existing and new entrants are
struggling to maintain or grow a business in an uncertain
climate created again by the lack of an ATMP. This impacts
visitor experiences as well as air tour businesses. Neither of
these situations is a good one.
Another reason for delay is the struggle to define adverse
significant impacts. In fact, at its last meeting in March, the
National Parks Overflights Advisory Group was asked to weigh in
on this issue and provide a white paper for the agencies. This
is currently being worked on and will be considered at its next
meeting. I think it is very important that the National Park
Service have a major role in determining what are adverse
significant impacts on the soundscapes of the very places that
have been placed under their care.
Still another issue for consideration is the enforcement of
the ATMP's. Since the National Park Service has no role in the
enforcement of FAA rules, it can only report infractions. It
was the intent of the original group that the enforcement would
be up to the FAA through operating certificates issued to the
operators. In this way, if a bad apple begins to spoil the
bushel, that operator would lose his or her certificate. I am
unclear whether this is still the process, but hope that this
can be clarified through work with the advisory group and the
two agencies.
In the original working group, we had some discussions on
using incentives to reward good actors. It appears that this
would be in the power of Congress to institute some of these
incentives. We also talked about providing incentives for those
who use quieter technology. Due to the greater expense of
newer, quieter technologies, it was understood that without
real incentives, an operator would have no motivation to buy
the latest technology. I hope that your committee will consider
some possibilities in this matter so that even areas that have
overflights will be able to be quieter.
What troubles me about this slow to no progress is that the
need for the experience of natural sounds is unabated. If
anything, in the midst of the din of our modern world, the need
for natural sounds is growing. If my own words are strongly in
favor of natural sounds, it is because I fear their loss. We
must treasure the soundscapes of an area just as we would the
landscapes. However, our parks are also treasures of our
Nation's history. Sometimes our silence needs to be out of
respect for courage and sacrifice at sites such as Gettysburg,
Valley Forge, or Chickamauga.
I would urge you to fully fund the efforts of both agencies
in their work to fulfill the intent and requirements of the
National Parks Air Tour Management Act. I also would hope that
you would plan periodic checkup meetings with the FAA, the NPS,
and the advisory board.
We need to be still and silent long enough to hear. We need
to shut off the noise long enough to revel in the natural
sounds that abound in our parks. We need to be quiet long
enough to stand in awe at national shrines and contemplate the
enormous sacrifices that have been made for freedom and
liberty.
The Air Tour Management Act is good legislation that goes a
long way in preserving the soundscapes of America's treasures
while allowing them to remain accessible. I urge you to
continue your efforts on behalf of our country's special
places.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for
this chance.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Maynard follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles W. Maynard, Member of the National Parks
Overflight Advisory Group and Former Director of Friends of Great Smoky
Mountains National Park
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to present my views on the Air Tour Management Act of 2000
and its enforcement.
I wish to submit the text of my comments for the records of the
Senate Subcommittee on National Parks and to summarize them in my
comments.
I served as the first Executive Director of Friends of Great Smoky
Mountains National Park from 1994 to 2001. Also, as a member of the
original National Parks Overflight Working Group (NPOWG), a current
member of the National Parks Overflight Advisory Group (NPOAG), and an
author of books and articles about America's scenic and historic
treasures, I am grateful for this moment to give you my thoughts on the
implementation of the Air Tour Management Act.
I became interested in the issue of commercial overflights of
national parks due to my work in the Great Smokies, Yellowstone, and
the Grand Tetons. For over a decade the National Park Service (NPS) and
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) struggled over jurisdiction
and impacts concerning air tours over our national parks. The White
House appointed the National Parks Overflight Working Group that
continued to wrestle with the same issues, but came to a consensus
about a process that was incorporated into the National Parks Air Tour
Management Act.
All members of the Working Group agreed that National Parks were
special places for our country. They also agreed that one regulation
would not fit every unit in the National Park System. It was at that
point that the process of an air tour management plan was conceived. In
this way, safety and resource impact concerns could be determined on a
park-by-park basis with the input of local, regional, and national
perspectives.
At times in the years since the act was passed in 2000, it appears
to me that the two agencies have continued to struggle over
jurisdiction and impacts. The two agencies have assigned capable staff
to work on this issue. While the two sets of staff people seem to work
well together at meetings, I'm not convinced that there was good
collaboration from the beginning. I will say that in the past year the
pace has picked up and the two teams seem to be working better
together. At this point I must say that the staffs of both agencies are
bright, capable people who seem dedicated to working on this issue. I
think we simply had a very slow start that delayed some of the
implementation far beyond anyone's expectations.
Both agencies have had to deal with new regulations and security
concerns since September 11, 2001. The implementation of this act
coincided with this difficult time. I do think that this delayed both
the FAA and the NPS in their initial efforts to implement the act.
I am concerned that existing and new entrants are not being held to
a standard that has been agreed upon through an air tour management
plan (ATMP). The issue of verification still seems to be in a gray
area. How do we verify information supplied by the operator or by those
on the ground?
I am also sure that other existing and new entrants are struggling
to maintain or grow a business in an uncertain climate created again by
the lack of an ATMP. There are impacts on visitor experiences as well
as air tour businesses. Neither of these situations are good ones.
Another reason for delay is the struggle to decide the definition
of ``adverse significant impacts.'' In fact, at its last meeting in
March, the National Parks Overflight Advisory Group was asked to weigh
in on this issue and provide a white paper for the agencies. This is
currently being considered. I think it is very important that the
National Park Service have a major role in determining what are adverse
significant impacts on the soundscapes of the places under their care.
Still another issue for consideration is the enforcement of the air
tour management plans with the operators. Since the National Park
Service has no role in the enforcement of FAA rules, it can only report
infractions. It was the intent of the original group that the
enforcement would be up to the FAA through the Part 135 certificates
issued to operators. In this way, if a ``bad apple'' begins to spoil
the bushel, that operator loses his/her Part 135 certificate. I am
unclear whether this is still the process but hope that this can be
clarified through work with the advisory group and the two agencies.
In the National Parks Overflight Working Group we had some
discussions on using incentives to reward good actors. It appears that
this would be in the power of Congress to institute some of these
incentives. We also talked about providing incentives for those who use
quieter technology. Due to the greater expense of newer, quieter
technologies, it was understood that without real incentives an
operator would have no motivation to buy the latest technologies
available. I hope that your committee will consider some possibilities
in this area so that even areas that have overflights will be able to
be quieter.
What troubles me about this slow to no progress is that the need
for the experience of natural sounds is unabated. If anything, in the
midst of the din of our modern world, the need for natural sounds is
growing.
It is important that we as humans have places where we can listen.
National parks are some of those spots where human-made noise needs to
be left behind so that natural sounds can be heard and discerned.
An old folktale describes a farmer who was disturbed by the
``noise'' of his wife, his children, and his mother-in-law. When he
sought the advice of the village wise man, he was told to bring his
pigs, cows, and goats into his house with his family. The noise was
atrocious! He couldn't stand it. Upon returning to the wise man, he was
advised to remove the animals. As the animals were taken out, he began
to hear the music of his family. ``Ah,'' said he, ``much better. We
have to remove the noise to hear the sounds that surround us.
Several years ago I came to Washington's National Gallery of Art to
see an exhibit of Thomas Moran's works. The paintings were marvelous.
Enormous canvases of the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, and Idaho Falls
covered entire walls. Small watercolors of Yellowstone recalled scenes
now familiar to me. What amazed me was how quiet it all was. People
spoke little and then only in hushed tones. I found myself thinking
that these people were being respectful of great works of art that were
fakes. Yes, fakes! The real works of art are what Moran was trying to
capture on canvas. The authentic treasures are in those national
parks--the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, the Great Smokies.
It is puzzling to me that we treat ``fakes'' with more respect and
awe than we do the real articles. Many attempts have been made over the
years to encroach on the natural sounds of our nation's parks. Cars,
buses, airplanes, motorboats, personal watercraft all serve useful
purposes in transporting people, but each has its place. Some places
need to be reserved for listening without the interruption of
mechanical noises. Too often our ears are assaulted with harsh human-
made noise that overpowers. National parks are for the benefit and
enjoyment of all the people. All these people have many needs and
desire varied uses.
Enjoyment for one is work for another. To see the Grand Canyon from
the air can be an awesome experience, as can a trek deep into the
canyon away from the press of humanity. Striking an equitable balance
requires that BOTH experiences be valued. This is not an either-or
choice. Our national parks are for the enjoyment of ALL people. We must
be wise enough to craft spaces for all uses. This is not without its
difficulties as the past few years have shown us. It was the intent of
the National Parks Overflight Working Group and the National Park Air
Tour Management Act to seek that balance.
If my own words are strongly in favor of natural sounds, it is
because I fear their loss in the din of our mechanized world. We must
treasure the soundscapes of an area just as we would the landscapes.
However, our parks are also treasures of our nation's history.
Sometimes our silence needs to be out of respect for courage and
sacrifice, at sites such as Gettysburg, Valley Forge, or Chickamauga
for example.
I would urge you to fully fund the efforts of both agencies in
their work to fulfill the. intent and requirements of the National Park
Air Tour Management Act. I also would hope that you plan periodic
check-up meetings with the Federal Aviation Administration, the
National Park Service, and the National Parks Overflight Advisory
Board.
Natural quiet does not exist. Heaven forbid that it ever should.
Rachel Carson warned about hazards to the environment in her book,
Silent Spring. The implication was that if nature is silent, then there
is real trouble. Nature is NOT quiet. It is filled with wonderful
sounds loud and soft, booming and buzzing.
No one likes to be shushed. We should be encouraging people to
listen, to truly hear the wonderful natural chorus that surrounds us.
We don't need natural quiet. We need human-made quiet. We need to be
still and silent long enough to hear. We need to shut off the noise
long enough to revel in the natural sounds that abound in our natural
parks. We need to be quiet long enough to stand in awe at national
shrines and contemplate the enormous sacrifices for freedom and liberty
others have made on our behalf.
In summary, my recommendations are:
That the agencies (FAA and NPS) are fully funded to complete
the ATMPs for all the parks where operators have requested to
fly.
That the agencies (FAA and NPS) have full funding to monitor
the ATMPs.
That a simple and clear procedure of verifying air tour
operations must be developed.
That the National Park Service have the lead role in
determining adverse significant impacts to the resources and
soundscapes in the parks.
That Congress continue to work with and monitor the progress
of the two agencies (FAA and NPS) as they work on implementing
the ATMA of 2000.
That the two agencies continue their work together and with
the National Parks Overflight Advisory Group.
That Congress develop some incentives for those who comply
with a park's air tour management plan and some penalties for
those who do not.
That Congress develop some incentives for those operators
who employ quieter technology.
The National Parks Air Tour Management Act is good legislation that
goes a long way in preserving the soundscapes of America's treasures
while allowing them to remain accessible. I urge you to continue your
efforts on behalf of our country's special places. It would be a shame
to come this far and let it fall by the wayside now.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for the
invitation to this hearing. I am most encouraged by your work and your
continued interest in our national parks and this very important issue.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Mr. Barger.
STATEMENT OF DON BARGER, SOUTHEAST REGION DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Barger. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Akaka, Senator Alexander. In the world of meaning, Charles
Maynard is always a hard act to follow. I appreciate the
opportunity to present comments of the National Parks and
Conservation Association.
Congress elevated two basic principles when it passed the
Air Tour Management Act in 2000. No. 1, that the sounds of
nature are among the inherent components of the resources that
form the core of the National Park Service's conservation
mandate; and two, that within the units of the National Park
System, the opportunity to experience natural sounds shall be
preserved unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.
These two principles embody the most fundamental purposes of
the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 and reflect the
act's enduring meaning in the world today.
I want to focus my comments on three areas of
implementation.
First, this act was carefully designed to allow both
agencies to use existing tools and authorities in a tandem
effort. While we believe that the working relationship may be
improving between the FAA and the Park Service, things are
going to continue to bog down if the Park Service tries to tell
the FAA how to fly planes or if the FAA tries to tell the Park
Service how to protect parks.
We believe that the legislative history is clear. Quoting
from the report on the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation from S. 82 in 1999, ``The committee further
intends that the FAA retains its role as the sole manager of
America's airspace and its responsibility to ensure a safe and
efficient air transport system and that the NPS retains its
responsibility and authority to protect park resources and
values and visitor experiences.''
We urge this subcommittee to continue to pay close
attention to this point as it is crucial in avoiding further
delay. The protection of our parks should not be determined by
a departmental compromise.
Second, NPCA is concerned that there is not yet a reliable
process to certify the existing number of commercial air tour
overflights over park units or even whether operators have
existing operations over the parks where they claim to fly.
National park managers were surveyed in 1992 and reported 42
park units had existing flightseeing operations. After the
final rule was issued, however, more than 70 air tour operators
applied for interim operating authority as existing operators
at more than 100 national park units. Collectively, these
existing operators are claiming to fly more than 160,000 air
tour overflights a year over units of the National Park System,
excluding Grand Canyon. Is this the right number? The answer is
basically we do not really know. Inaccuracies in these numbers
frustrate any meaningful assessment of the impacts of existing
flights on the parks resources and visitors.
To answer your question, Senator Alexander, this last week
I called up the Smokies and asked them were they aware of any
interim operating authority applications having been filed and
their answer was no for the two operators down in Sevierville.
That does not mean they have not been but the park simply was
not aware of them at all.
NPCA believes the best solution to this situation is
sunlight. FAA should immediately release to the public the
names of all air tour operators claiming existing operator
status over parks, along with the number of flights that they
each claim. We also recommend that the FAA release the names of
new entrant applicants and where they wish to fly. Such
information is central to the understanding of whether and how
the act is being implemented. At this point none of this
information is available to the general public, and as far as
we know, FAA even refuses to give interim operating
applications to their partners, the National Park Service.
Third, while Congress has specifically granted the Park
Service the authority to protect park visitors and resources,
the Park Service has insufficient funding to implement the act
as intended. Park Service estimates given to NPCA more than 4
years ago showed that the funding requirements for air tour
management planning are more than twice the current budget.
Unfortunately, the lack of funds prevents the Park Service from
playing the role that the act properly prescribes. It is yet
another byproduct of the chronic operational funding shortfall
that plagues the National Park System and which many members of
this subcommittee have been trying to help us address.
In conclusion, NPCA respectfully asks that the subcommittee
help ensure that both agencies implement the Air Tour
Management Act expeditiously. We specifically recommend, No. 1,
that we demand that the agencies continue to improve their
level of cooperation, paying particular attention to ensuring
that the Park Service retains its authority to determine the
impacts of air tours on park resources, visitors, and values;
two, call for the expedited release of information to the
public on existing and new entrant applications and the
development of a clear procedure for verifying operator claims
about where and how often they fly; and finally, support an
increase in funding for the Park Service's operations so that
it can fully participate in the development of these plans.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for
inviting me today. I very much appreciate your interest in this
very important issue.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barger follows:]
Prepared Statement of Don Barger, Southeast Regional Director,
National Parks Conservation Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the National Parks Conservation
Association on the implementation of the National Parks Air Tour
Management Act of 2000 (the Parks Air Tour Act).
NPCA is the only national, non-profit advocacy group dedicated
solely to protecting and enhancing America's National Park System for
present and future generations. NPCA's 300,000 members are spread
throughout the United States; they visit national parks to experience
nature, wildlife, scenic wonders, and natural soundscapes, as well as
to enjoy the many cultural and historic features that our nation has
chosen to preserve for posterity.
Since 1992, I have been employed as NPCA's Southeast Regional
Director. The region I manage for NPCA includes 46 national park units,
including the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the most visited
national park in the entire National Park System.
The management of commercial air tours over national parks has long
been of great concern to NPCA and our members. While we do not oppose
all commercial air tours over parks, we are concerned that Park System
units such as Hawaii Volcanoes, Haleakala, Bryce Canyon, Glen Canyon,
and Grand Canyon are subject to overflights by hundreds and thousands
of commercial air tours every year. Commercial air tours can disrupt
the park experience for visitors: The noise from helicopters and planes
and the visual intrusions they cause often jar visitors who travel
great distances to visit the parks and expect a measure of peace and
solitude.
NPCA worked on the development and pushed for the passage of the
National Parks Overflight Act of 1987, a law that gave the FAA and Park
Service the ability to regulate commercial air tours over Grand Canyon
and called for a study on overflights over parks nationwide. Members of
our staff worked with representatives of the FAA, Park Service, air
tour industry, and Native American community in the National Parks
Overflight Working Group, which drafted some of the original language
for the Parks Air Tour Act of 2000, the law whose implementation we are
discussing today.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Congress elevated two basic principles when it passed the Parks
Overflight Act of 1987 and the Parks Air Tour Act: (1) that the sounds
of nature are among the inherent components of the resources which form
the core of the National Park Service's conservation mandate and (2)
that within units of the National Park System, the opportunity to
experience natural sounds, shall be preserved ``unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations.'' These two principles embody the most
fundamental purposes of the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916,
and reflect the Parks Air Tour Act's enduring meaning for the world
today.
In enacting these important park overflight laws, Congress placed
significance importance on the protection of natural sounds in our
national parks such that it designed a new, unprecedented role for the
National Park Service in their implementation. Congress authorized the
National Park Service to exercise some control, in cooperation with the
FAA, over the commercial air tour industry that profits from flying
over many of our most scenic and visited national parks. Both the Park
Overflights Act and the Parks Air Tour Act broke new ground in ordering
a level of cooperation between the National Park Service and the FAA to
which neither agency was accustomed, and I dare say for which neither
agency was fully prepared.
IMPLEMENTATION
The different cultures and missions of FAA and NPS have hindered
the implementation of the Parks Air Tour Act and resulted in extremely
disappointing delays in implementing the Act. As the Act recognizes and
provides, the FAA has the ``authority'' to control airspace and to
manage the adverse effects of aircraft overflights on public lands. The
Act also recognizes that the Park Service is the appropriate agency to
determine the impacts of commercial air tours on park resources and
visitor experiences. The competing missions and goals of both agencies
resulted in a delay of 2\1/2\ years before the FAA published the final
rule to implement the Parks Air Tour Act--a critically important rule
because it defined the air space over national parks that would be
subject to regulation. In addition it took both agencies more than
three years to finalize a Memorandum of Understanding that helps define
how they will cooperate when analyzing the air tour issue at national
parks and when implementing management solutions.
While the working relationship between the FAA and the Park Service
has been improving somewhat, the debate continues over which agency
determines the impacts of air tour overflights on park visitors and
resources. This is particularly troubling, given the important role for
the Park Service contemplated by the Act, its legislative history,\1\
and the recommendations of the National Parks Overflight Working
Group.\2\ And although the FAA may be expected to claim that it will
defer to Park Service expertise in determining air tour impacts, the
actual experience and relative power and resources of the two agencies
makes this assertion highly questionable. We encourage the subcommittee
to make certain that the Park Service is, in fact, the agency that
determines air tour impacts, so appropriate implementation may move
forward without further delay. This includes ensuring the Park Service
receives and requests the resources necessary to do the job.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See p. 44 of Report (106-9) of the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation on S. 82, March 8, 1999.
\2\ See p. 4, National Parks Overflights Working Group Outline of
Recommended Rule, December 16, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE AIR TOUR ACT RULE
The rule required that existing and new entrant air tour operators
wishing to fly regular tours over park units apply to the FAA. Those
applications identified for the FAA and NPS which national park units
and tribal lands actually required air tour management plans.
``Existing operators'' were granted Interim Operating Authority (IOA)
so that they could continue to fly over a park unit. According to the
Parks Air Tour Act, IOA grants each existing air tour operator
permission to fly a certain number of flights annually; each operator's
total flight allowance is based on the number of annual flights he flew
over a park unit before the passage of the Act.\3\ IOA may not provide
for an increase in annual flight numbers unless the FAA Administrator
and Park Service Director agree to an increase.\4\ A final air tour
management plan may, however, provide for increases; prohibit air tours
entirely; or lower the existing limits on numbers of operations imposed
by the I0A. ``New entrants'' generally are prohibited from operating
until a park unit completes an air tour management plan, specifically
to pause the growth of air tour operations over park units until the
FAA and Park Service create a suitable management structure. Yet, the
Parks Air Tour Act provides that the FAA Administrator, with the
consent of the Park Service Director, may grant IOA to ``new entrants''
if (1) the Administrator determines that ``new entrants'' are necessary
to ensure competition over a park unit and (2) more than two years have
elapsed since enactment. We believe the agencies should not consider
``new entrant'' applications until the agencies and the public has
complete and reliable information on existing operators' status over
parks. Although the Act provides for the integration of competition for
the park air tour business, bringing new entrants into park airspace
where impacts of existing air tour overflights have not been accurately
identified or analyzed--and indeed, the data about existing air tour
overflights may be suspect--frustrates the purpose and intent of the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ IOA, as defined by the final rule, shall provide annual
authorization only for the great of: The number of flights used by the
operator to provide the commercial air tour operations within the 12-
month period prior to April 5, 2000; or the average number of flights
per 12-month period used by the operator within the 36-month period
prior to April 5, 2000.
\4\ The Act also says that IOA ``shall'' promote protection of
national park resources, visitor experiences, and tribal lands; and
``shall'' allow for modifications of the IOA based on experience if the
modification improves protection of national park resources, and
values, and of tribal lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCOPE OF PARK AIR TOUR ISSUE
In 1992, the National Park Service surveyed park managers
throughout the Park System about the type and scope of aircraft
overflights impacting park units. At that time, managers in 42 park
units reported the existence of sightseeing overflights over the units
they managed.\5\ We knew then that air tours at certain parks were of
great concern, but we did not yet fully comprehend the scale. The
potential scale became clear after the final Parks Air Tour Act rule
was issued and more than 70 air tour operators applied for IOA as
existing operators for more than 100 national park units. Collectively,
these existing operators are claiming they fly more than 160,000 air
tour overflights a year over units of the National Park System. This
figure excludes air tours over Grand Canyon National Park. But, is this
the correct number of actual air tours over the Park System? Because of
the problems with verification and lack public disclosure in the IOA
process, we cannot be certain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Results of survey included in the Park Service's July 1995
Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park System
(prepared pursuant to the 1987 National Parks Overflights Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some parks clearly have a larger problem with air tour overflights
than others: At Hawaii Volcanoes and Haleakala National Parks, which we
know have active air tours throughout the year, existing operators
claim to fly more than 23,000 flights a year over each park. While
there is likely a fluctuating, seasonal nature to this business in many
parks, the total number of overflights over those two Hawaii park units
would translate to an average of more than 63 flights a day over each
park. Over the U.S.S. Arizona Memorial in Honolulu harbor, operators
claim more than 3,600 flights a year. Air tour operators over Mount
Rushmore National Monument report they fly more than 5,500 overflights
annually. Glacier National Park, a park with a publicly-vetted General
Management Plan that calls for the elimination of commercial air tour
overflights, has more than 1,500 air tours a year, most.concentrated in
a three-month summer season. And, operators are claiming hundreds and
thousands of flights a year over a number of parks in the southwest and
some in the east.
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE AND VERIFICATION
There is not yet a reliable process to certify the existing number
of commercial air tour overflights over park unit or even whether
operators have existing operations over the parks where they claim to
fly. While many operators filed or attempted to file accurate claims in
their IOA applications, some of the claims that we have seen arouse
suspicion. We learned in discussions during the last Overflight
Advisory Group meeting that in some cases, FAA's instructions to
commercial air tour operators about how to apply for IOA might have
been unclear or inconsistent. As a. result, some commercial air tour
operators may have provided inaccurate information about the national
parks they actually fly over and the number of flights flown over
specific parks. Our concern is that before the air tour management
process even has begun over most park units, we may have unreliable
figures at some parks about the true scale of the air tour business.
Proceeding under such uncertainty is unfair to local communities near
parks, park visitors, and existing and new air tour operators.
Inaccuracies in these, numbers frustrate any meaningful assessment
of the impacts of existing flights on a parks resources and visitors.
This is true even when the operations are highly visible. In fact, at
the Great Smoky Mountains National Park there are at least two flight-
seeing operations that fly into the airspace of that park and, to my
knowledge, the park has had no applications for IOA. Whose job is it
under the Act to enforce in this case?
NPCA believes the best solution is sunlight: FAA should immediately
release to the public the names of all air tour operators claiming
``existing'' operator status over parks, along with the number of
flights they each claim. We also recommend that the FAA release the
names of ``new entrant'' applicants and where they wish to fly. Such
information is central to understanding how the Parks Air Tour Act is
being implemented and how the authority granted under IOA ``promotes
protection'', or might be ``modified to promote protection'' \6\ based
on long-standing experience. At this point, none of this information is
available to the public; as far as we know, FAA refuses to give IOA
applications to even the Park Service. During the last meeting of the
Advisory Group, the FAA proposed to issue a new Federal Register notice
asking all existing air tour operators to ``self-correct'' their claims
of flight volumes over parks. After collecting those responses, FAA
would release to the public a revised list of existing air tour
operators along with the numbers of flights over parks they claimed.
While such a process may work in the end, we believe it is
unnecessarily time consuming and may cause further delays that are
unfair to park visitors and air tour operators alike. (Genuine concerns
about security at some internationally renowned park units, such as
Mount Rushmore, should provide sufficient motivation to the FAA for
informing the Park Service and the public about who is flying near
these popular sites).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See footnote 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following that last Advisory group meeting, NPCA and The Wilderness
Society, both of which are members of this group, sent a Freedom of
Information Act request to the FAA seeking the air tour operators'
applications for Interim Operating Authority over those parks of
concern. Our request was necessary because FAA has not provided the
Advisory Group with the IOA applications, even though the Advisory
Group's role is to advise the agencies on implementation of the Act. We
want to share the results of our FOIA with the rest of the Advisory
Group, but FAA has demanded that we pay a significant fee for its
release of the operator applications. At this point, our FOIA request
is still unresolved.
FUNDING FOR THE AIR TOUR MANAGEMENT PROCESS
While Congress has specifically granted the Park Service the
authority to protect park visitors and park resources, NPS has
insufficient resources to enforce the Act as intended. The Memorandum
of Understanding between the agencies for the air tour management
process requires a 60/40 split on costs for outside contractors hired
to do studies and environmental assessments. This demand for
cooperation should be recognized in the Park Service's budgets. NPS
estimates provided to NPCA more than four years ago showed the funding
requirements for air tour management planning to be more than twice the
current budget of $918,000. Unfortunately, the lack of funds prevent
the Park Service from playing the role Congress contemplated it would
have. It is yet another byproduct of the chronic operations funding
shortfall that plagues the National Park System, and which many members
of this subcommittee have been trying to help us address.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In conclusion, NPCA respectfully asks that the subcommittee help
ensure that both the FAA and NPS implement the National Parks Air Tour
Management Act expeditiously, and according to the spirit, and not just
the letter of the law. We specifically recommend that Congress:
Demand that FAA and NPS continue to improve their level of
cooperation, while paying particular attention to ensuring that
NPS retains its authority to determine the impacts of air tours
on park resources, visitors, and values;
Call for the expedited release of information, to the public
on existing and new entrant park air tour operator applications
and the development of a clear procedure for verifying park air
tour operator claims about where and how often they fly;
Support an increase in funding for the Park Service's
operations so it can fully participate in the development of
air tour management acts
Thank you, again, Mr. Chairmen for the opportunity to testify today
and for your subcommittee's interest in this important issue facing our
national parks. I welcome any questions that you may have.
Senator Thomas. Well, thanks to all of you. We appreciate
you being here and appreciate your points of view.
Maybe we have a few quick questions. We will try to ask
them quickly, and if you can answer them quickly, that will be
nice too.
Mr. Resavage, you referred to quotas arbitrarily set at
unjustly low levels. What do you mean? Who set the quotas and
why are they arbitrary?
Mr. Resavage. Well, I say they are arbitrary because a
timeframe was just picked that said if you have flown between
this month of this year and this month of this year, that that
should be the number that you should be held to. Well, was that
a good year or a bad year? Was that a year where there was a
lot of activity or was it a year where there was very little
activity? Is the need or the requirements of the people that
want to visit the parks increased or decreased the people that
want to experience the parks by air? So it is very difficult
for us to understand how those numbers could be selected to
begin with and then the justification for maintaining them at
that particular level.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Mr. Maynard, you indicated that it is important the Park
Service has a major role in determining the adverse impact. Is
there a concern on your part that that is not the case?
Mr. Maynard. Well, I am concerned that we are still arguing
over what adverse significant impacts are.
Senator Thomas. Arguing with who?
Mr. Maynard. The two agencies are still working on that
definition.
Senator Thomas. Why would FAA have any particular concern
about the impacts? I would think you would determine what the
impacts are and then FAA would figure out how to avoid them.
Mr. Maynard. I do not think that is the way it is currently
being--I think they are trying to come up with definitions that
both agencies can work with and live with. As I mentioned, the
advisory group has been asked to weigh in on this and they are
going to try to develop some things in the next few months for
that.
But that is, I think, one of our concerns over and over
again, that the Park Service maintain that ability to say this
is an impact on our resource or on our visitors in this
resource.
Senator Thomas. Sure, I understand.
Does your organization have a feeling strongly about
whether there ought to be overflights or not?
Mr. Maynard. Well, I am at the Smokies, and as Senator
Alexander pointed out, in the Smokies the legislation that set
up the Smokies originally was very careful to make sure that
commercial development stayed outside of the park so that
unlike Yellowstone, for instance, there are no hotels inside
the park. They are outside. So I think the local communities
are similar to what Senator Alexander was saying, that there is
real concern over what is happening over the park as opposed to
away from the park looking into the park. There are ways to
have wonderful overflight experiences but just not over the
park.
Senator Thomas. You say you had some involvement with
Teton. That was kind of the way that was. The border was such
that you could fly outside the border and still get most of the
impacts of the--of course, you could still hear them as well,
as I recall.
Senator.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dave Chevalier, first of all, I want to say thank you
again. Thank you for your years of hard work contributing to
the implementation of the act. The voluntary air tour
management plans in Hawaii are very important models for air
tour issues nationwide, and your firm has been a key player in
making this work. I want you to know that I do appreciate that.
I am encouraged to hear your suggestion for using
transponders to track flights and the use of fee demonstration
funds from overflight visitors to fund the system. The use of
transponders is already widespread in the trucking and
commercial fishing industry, not to mention wildlife tracking
and is being considered for tracking cargo containers as they
arrive in the United States.
What level of acceptance would this suggestion have among
air tour operators over national parks nationwide?
Mr. Chevalier. Senator, I think that the people that want
to play by the rules will welcome this because it proves that
they do play by the rules, and they will not be tarred with the
same brush of an operator who may not want to play by the
rules. That is always something we have to deal with. By not
having that, by not having good enforcement, you can make
suckers out of law-abiders. That is why something like this
would ensure compliance and that everybody is playing by the
rules. I think that would be well accepted.
Senator Akaka. You mentioned incentives for quiet
technology. I realize you have been on the forefront in
investing in what we call quiet technology. What kinds of
incentives and guidelines would be most useful, do you think?
Mr. Chevalier. I am really not sure. I really hate to put
that out as what those might be. I think that is more of a job
for the advisory group to come up with that. But there
definitely has to be something. I think the critical thing,
though, is that we come up with a definition for quiet
technology, what aircraft qualify. Yes, we have invested in
quiet technology aircraft. That sounds good but there is
nothing to say that they are quiet technology aircraft. There
is no definition of this aircraft meets the definition and this
aircraft does not. So until we have that guideline set,
operators around the country are not going to spend that money,
and it takes, like I said, a lot of long-term planning to be
able to make these acquisitions for most companies, and they
have to know what the target is.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Resavage, I thank you for your
forthright testimony. I appreciate your continued support for
the goals and intent of the air tour act.
With the problems you have highlighted, I would be
interested in your comments on the use of a moderator or
mediator to fix the process as suggested in other testimony.
Another option to Congress is a study by the Government
Accounting Office, an objective voice to evaluate and make
recommendations on the implementation of the act.
What is your opinion of these two options and do you have
any other suggestions?
Mr. Resavage. Thank you for the question, Senator.
I would support the role of a mediator, and I think that it
would have the potential of expediting the process. I believe
that if a study group were to come in, that again might push
back the results. As we all know, if you have blue ribbon
panels working on gathering data and analyzing data, it seems
to take forever.
I think the people that have worked on the NPOAG really
deserve a tremendous amount of credit where there was a lot of
animosity in the very beginning and people were trying to
protect their positions, but through careful negotiating and
moderation and the willingness of people on all sides to work
together, they have come up with a reasonable plan, again where
not everyone is pleased but it is a workable plan that should
be implemented.
I think a moderator, as you possibly suggest, Senator,
might be able to get the two agencies working a little bit
faster and closer together. I agree with Mr. Barger's comment
and Mr. Maynard's also that the agencies appear to be trying to
work better recently, and they are making a solid effort to
have this plan work. But I do not want to grow old before we
see this thing happen, and I am getting pretty close to that
already. So I would like to see some type of accelerated
process, and I think your suggestion would be a good one.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Barger, a point made several times today
is the importance of fully funding the Park Service's
contribution to the Air Tour Management Act. In the memorandum
of agreement signed earlier this year, there is a 60/40 split
between the FAA and the National Park Service. Did I understand
correctly that at its current budget of $918,000 for
overflights, the Park Service still falls short of its 40
percent funding expectation under the joint agreement?
Mr. Barger. That depends entirely on how long you want the
process to go. What we found from the figures that we were
given by the National Park Service several years ago was that
the level of funding specifically for the soundscape program
that does the implementation of the Park Service's aspect of
these plans was less than half of what they needed to actually
move it along on an expedited schedule. This is part and parcel
to the chronic underfunding of the National Park Service's
operational budget overall. There are really not other places
that this can be pulled from.
NPCA did a business plan initiative where we took graduate
students from universities and put them in the parks to just do
a small business plan for the parks, and we came up with a very
consistent 30 to 35 percent shortfall in basic operational
money just to operate the parks. So there is not room elsewhere
in the Park Service's budget. These things have to be
deliberately funded so that they can be completed in a timely
manner.
Senator Akaka. Well, thank you very much. My time has
expired. So let me pass you on to Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander [presiding]. Senator Akaka, do you have
other questions you would like to ask?
Senator Akaka. Well, I have one more.
Senator Alexander. Why do you not take whatever time you
need?
Senator Akaka. Mr. Barger, in your view what effect does
the Park Service's funding level have on its ability to
contribute to the decision-making about the law and its
implementation?
Mr. Barger. I think there are two aspects to that. The Park
Service performing its appropriate function within the tandem
effort is a matter of a cooperation and understanding between
the two agencies of what those various roles are. I think that
needs to be clarified. I think the agencies need to understand
that Congress commissioned the FAA to take care of safety,
transport efficiency, and the National Park Service to protect
the resources and the visitor experience in national parks, and
bifurcate those functions within their overall procedure. If
that is done, then I would suggest that we may not need a
mediator. In fact, you might have a lot clearer process to move
forward with.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for your responses.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Akaka, for your
interest and leadership.
I want to thank the witnesses for this. I am officially new
to the issue and catching up, so I will not have many
questions. I am personally not new to the issue because I am
very interested in it and I am interested in seeing the dilemma
that the law creates for all of you. Basically it says the Park
Service can decide, the way I read it, what the environmental
impact is, but the FAA can decide how to control the airspace.
Then that leaves the operators, who are trying to operate a
business, with a lot of uncertainty for a long period of time
while that is worked out, and that is about the worst thing
that can happen to a small business.
Let me just ask this. None of you represent the Park
Service but did you start out with the idea that the Park
Service could just make a decision in all the parks about what
it would take to protect the parks and then send it to the FAA
and let them outside that area make the safety rules? That
would be one way to do it.
Why does the Park Service under the law not have the right
to say that in Chickamauga, which was an example that Senator
Thomas used, to preserve the serenity of the occasion, we do
not want to be able to hear any helicopters and just send that
to the FAA? Or why could the Park Service not decide that in
another area that there were major areas where it did not make
much difference or it made less difference? Did that ever
happen?
Mr. Chevalier. That was the crux of the discussion in the
working group certainly. We did decide that there may be some
parks where air tours are not appropriate, and that will be
determined at the end of the ATMP process. There may be some
parks where there are going to be unlimited air tours because
it is an urban environment. We would hope that in most parks
certainly now that have air tour flights, there can be an
accommodation worked out where it can be a win-win for both.
That is really what we want to get to, where there is a place
for ground visitors where they can have the experience, the
solitude and natural quiet, and at the same time we can have a
place where air tour visitors can see their parks as well.
Senator Alexander. That is a very reasonable approach. I am
just wondering, though, why the FAA has anything to do with the
kind of experience someone has in a national park. Why is the
National Park Service not in charge of that?
Mr. Resavage. Senator, if I could just add. Part of the
difficulty is, as Mr. Hoffman had mentioned earlier, it is a
very complicated process trying to figure out what is an
acceptable level of noise or excess energy, whatever the PC
term is for what we hear, whether it is buses or trains or cars
or helicopters that are in the National Park System. When you
are trying to work the algorithms and figure out how much noise
is acceptable and who is contributing what to that, the FAA
cannot be taken out of that equation because there are airports
that are in close proximity to some national parks. There are
aircraft that are flying over the parks that are actually not
part of the commercial experience but they are also adding
noise to the environment. So it is a very delicate process of
trying to figure out who is adding what to the equation and who
should be held accountable for trying to compensate for that
noise or reduce that noise.
Mr. Barger. Senator Alexander, if I may respond also to
that. I think it is a very good question. My response would be
the National Park Service is responsible for those things, and
in fact, the legislation was designed and the report language
confirms that, in fact, the intention was for the agencies to
exert existing authorities, rather than try to create a new
authority or new jurisdiction, to simply meld those two
together in a tandem effort.
I think where you see a lot of the complications--they come
from two different agencies participating in a NEPA process
together where one is a lead agency by necessity and the other
a cooperating agency. And in relation to national parks, the
park-specific nature of the resources in that particular place
need to be looked at. The degree and depth of analysis is going
to vary from place to place.
And third, public involvement is one of the reasons you
want to make sure and have a process in each place.
I will say that a decibel meter can give you information
but it cannot give you a decision based on the preservation of
values. I think that is where your question went. I have to
agree with you that the National Park Service has the mandate
from Congress to make those kinds of decisions. I think after a
few plans have been put in place and some common things begin
to develop, you may find them coming much more efficiently and
more quickly.
Senator Alexander. Let me ask, if I may, just maybe one or
two more questions, and then I will see if Senator Akaka has
any other questions.
Just so I understand what the status of things are today,
if I am an operator and I want to fly at Chickamauga, can I do
that? Can I fly over a national park if I am not now flying?
What is the law?
Mr. Chevalier. No.
Senator Alexander. So new entrants are not allowed today,
is that correct, while this decision-making is going on?
Mr. Resavage. Senator, my understanding is that if someone
has not currently operated within the previous 12 months, they
cannot automatically start operating in a national park area.
They can apply for an interim operating authority, but then as
Mr. Withycombe had mentioned earlier and Mr. Hoffman both, then
that application will be taken into account and they will
determine whether that would have an adverse impact or not. But
to date, to my knowledge, that is not what is occurring. To
have a new entrant, basically a person would have to obtain
someone else's certificate even at an existing park, let alone
starting an operation at a new park.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
And since Mr. Maynard and Mr. Barger know the Smokies
pretty well, am I right, so far as you know, are there now two
operators operating flights in the Smokies? Is that correct, or
do you know?
Mr. Maynard. There are two that have applied for interim
operating authority that had had operations before. However,
there are two others that appear to be operating there as well.
Senator Alexander. Do the other two have the authority to
do that?
Mr. Maynard. Well, I think that is what we need to
determine.
Senator Alexander. That would be answered by my question to
the National Park Service and the FAA. So that would be four
operators that have been observed operating in the Smokies.
Mr. Maynard. Right.
Senator Alexander. And you think two clearly have authority
and it is not clear whether two more do.
Mr. Maynard. Right.
Senator Alexander. Well, thank you. I think Chairman Thomas
has done a service by putting the spotlight on this, and
Senator Akaka by his interest has done the same. I am glad to
have had the chance to be a part of the discussion. I apologize
for missing the first part, but I could not help that because
of my presiding responsibilities.
Just to summarize three principles that are in my mind as I
will be looking at this, I think certainty is a very important
principle and the Government does a disservice to itself, to
the people it serves, and to small businesses especially when
it creates uncertainty so people cannot make their plans. So
the idea of moving things along is certainly something we
should do.
Then I think we have got two other principles that I will
have in my mind as I look at what the right thing to do is
here. I have come to believe that the absence of artificial
noise may be 20 or 25 years from now the rarest and most
valuable quality of life aspect that we have. It will be harder
and harder to find. I also believe that there are many national
parks where limited or no loud helicopter noises would be the
right policy. That would be my personal view. I think of the
Smokies in particular because of the huge population that uses
the Smokies and is around the Smokies, and there are not many
refuges in that geographical area of this country. Loud
helicopter noise or loud any noise is in direct contradiction
to 500,000 acres that are operated as if it were a wilderness.
Having said that, I am also aware that a single policy for
all our parks and all our sections of the country is almost
always not a wise policy. Almost always. The West has one set
of circumstances; the East has another. Cities have some; rural
has another. I hope that as we work through this as a committee
and as your organizations do and as the Government agencies do
that we admit that up front. There might be a wide diversity in
policies here, just as there is broad diversity in our country.
I can think of many examples of that. They come up before this
committee on a regular basis.
I was thinking of the fees that are charged for
recreational areas and national forests. In the West where
there are vast expanses, they have become a real irritant in
many cases. In Cherokee National Forest in the East, the $2
million a year that are collected there is absolutely essential
to clean it up and run out the drug users and do all the other
things that those of us who want to use it want. So we should
recognize that, that in the West there might be one policy, in
the East there might be another. That may help to get through
the issues here. It sounds like you are already on that track
with the advisory committee by segregating out some parts of
the country and working on those and trying to solve those
problems and moving on to others.
But I appreciate your effort. I thank you for your time in
coming here. We will all read your testimony carefully. I for
one intend to be very interested in the subject as we move
along.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:13 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
National Parks Conservation Association,
Southeast Regional Office,
Knoxville, TN, August 18, 2004.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thomas: I appreciate the opportunity to extend my
testimony before the Subcommittee on National Parks on July 22nd
through these responses to your questions. I apologize for not being
able to get these back to you by August 13th as requested; your letter
did not reach me until August 12th. I hope that this information is
responsive to your inquiries and stand ready to provide any other
clarification or further information that you request to facilitate
your important review of the implementation of the National Parks Air
Tour Management Act of 2000. Your questions and my response follow.
Yours Truly,
Don Barger,
Senior Director.
[Enclosure.]
Question 1. You noted a lack of confidence in the original
application information the FAA received from the air tour operators.
What is your confidence in the second round of information sought by
the FAA?
Answer. When the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) drafted its
first Advisory Circular, the National Park Service (NPS) asked the,FAA,
to require enough information to provide a means to verify the
submitted data. Apparently, the FAA did not do so. The only reason FAA
has now had to ask twice is that we know from operators who are trying
to comply with the Act that at least some of the original numbers were
``padded'' and are not accurate. Lack of clarity about the uses of the
information may also have left operators uncertain about its purpose
and application. In this situation, the Reagan Doctrine--``trust, but
verify''--seems appropriate.
It is critically important that information be accurate before
becoming the basis for management decisions. The ``safe harbor''
concept is a good idea, but only if we get it right this time. We
believe that public involvement and daylight are essential elements of
any successful effort. Given our experience to date, our confidence in
the second round of information sought by FAA will most likely be
pretty low unless FAA releases all current information on proposed or
purported park overflights to the public, and requires meaningful proof
from air tour operators to support their interim operating authority
applications and the number of annual flights claimed on those
applications.
Question 2. You suggest that an analysis be done prior to allowing
new businesses to operate air tours. Isn't that what the plan is
supposed to do? What can be done short of another NEPA process to allow
new entrants to operate sooner?
Answer. The air tour management plans are supposed to analyze
existing and proposed overflights impacts on park soundscapes,
visitors, values and other resources. The delay in completing plans is
regrettable and punctuates the importance of this congressional focus
on FAAINPS cooperation and funding for this program. Nonetheless, we do
not believe that the delays should force the NPS to sidestep its legal
responsibilities to analyze the impacts of existing overflights or of
proposed overflights prior to allowing new entrants. To do so would, in
fact, frustrate the purpose of the Act.
The NPOAG has been tasked to look at this issue and make
recommendations. This consensus process has worked well to resolve
these kinds of issues throughout the creation of this planning
framework and we would suggest it continues to be the best avenue to
recommend solutions to this issue.
Question 3. Your testimony requests that the act be implemented
according to the ``spirit of the law not just the letter of the law''.
Please describe the difference between the two-as you see it.
Answer. Thank you for this question as we believe that it is at the
heart of our current situation. The ``spirit'' of the National Parks
Air Tour Management Act is to protect our national parks, and to
provide for a proactive and fair method for managing park overflights
where appropriate. While the ``letter'' of the law designates FAA as
the lead agency, it also gives the NPS equal signatory authority on the
Record of Decision for every management plan. These two provisions were
created deliberately and for very different purposes. The FAA was
designated as the lead agency in preparing the air tour management
plans because it is the agency with the authority and jurisdiction to
implement and enforce those plans. The NPS was given signatory
authority on the Record of Decision because it is the agency with the
authority and jurisdiction to protect national park resources and
values. The ``spirit'' of this statutory framework has been from the
beginning that each agency would maintain and exercise its existing
authority in the creation of a plan that accomplishes the respective
missions of both.
In the current situation, we believe FAA is trying to assert its
own standards and processes as taking precedence over NPS standards and
processes with regard to park protection. We believe the ``spirit'' of
the law requires that the FAA-give deference to the NPS with regard to
determining standards, impacts and the appropriate processes for
evaluating these standards and impacts in relation to park protection.
Likewise, the NPS must defer to the FAA in matters of air safety and
enforcement of any airspace restrictions created by an air tour
management plan. Simply put, the NPS cannot tell the FAA how to fly
planes, and the FAA cannot tell the NPS how to protect parks.
NPCA is grateful for the subcommittee's interest in the proper
implementation of this important statute. The National Parks Air Tour
Management Act is about protecting the meaning, resources and values of
our national parks, and the experiences that we will provide to our
grandchildren rest in the balance. Please let me know if we may be of
further assistance to the Committee.
______
Helicopter Association International,
Alexandria, VA, September 1, 2004.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thomas: Thank you, again, for the opportunity to
appear before the Subcommittee and for this additional opportunity to
put forth common-sense solutions to the dilemma of the helicopter tour
industry.
In response to your three questions with regard to my testimony
regarding the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-
181), the quick and dirty responses are as follows.
Sincerely,
Roy Resavage,
President.
[Enclosure.]
Question 1. Given, as you noted, that the bar for completing the
plans might have been set too high, what can be done in the meantime to
ease the burden on air tour operators?
Answer. Relief to the FAA and NPS stalemate would be partially
provided by a more liberalized and standardized process of obtaining
interim operating clearances, and an accurate assessment of the actual
numbers of tours flown.
Question 2. You referred to quotas ``arbitrarily set at unjustly
low levels.'' Can you clarify this statement please? Who set the quotas
and why are they arbitrary?
Answer. Quotas were based upon a one-year period, not a multi-year
average. Further, no consideration was given to future needs and number
of persons wishing to visit the national park system by air. In fact,
the formula does not even correctly identify the number of flights
flown. The FAA and the NPS set the quotas.
Solution: Take a mathematical average of a range of years. Improve
the quality of the data. Build in a reasonable escalation provision for
increased demand for these services.
Question 3. What could be done in air tour management plans to
create incentives for the use of quiet technologies?
Who decides what constitutes quiet technology?
Answer. The FAA is charged with defining what constitutes quiet
technology.
Operators that have already re-capitalized their fleet to
significantly quieter aircraft should receive special considerations
now! For example: Preferred commercial air tour routes and altitudes
and relief from caps and curfews.
______
Department of the Interior,
Office of Legislative and Congressional Affairs,
Washington, DC, November 2, 2004.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thomas: Enclosed are answers to the follow-up
questions from the hearing held by the Subcommittee on National Parks,
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on July 22, 2004. These
responses have been prepared by the National Park Service.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to respond to you on the
matter. We apologize for the delay in our response.
Sincerely,
Jane M. Lyder,
Legislative Counsel.
[Enclosure.]
Questions From Senator Thomas
Question 1. What are the top three priorities for DOI and FAA when
it comes to implementing the Air Tour Management Act of 2000?
Answer. The top three priorities for the National Park Service
(NPS) working in concert with the FAA are to:
provide protection of park resources through sound science,
air safety, and opportunities to enjoy parks via air tours;
improve and enhance methods to measure and analyze the
impacts of air craft noise and to develop appropriate and
effective mitigation; and
jointly establish, implement, and enforce a mutually
agreeable process for developing Air Tour Management Plans
(ATMPs).
Question 1A. What progress have you made towards achieving those
priorities?
Answer. We are monitoring and collecting acoustic data in
approximately nine parks slated for ATMPs as well as working with the
DOT's Volpe Center on modeling and analysis. We are working with FAA on
a joint implementation plan that will guide ATMP development. We are
also working on future ATMPs and have initiated the development of
ATMPs in 11 parks.
Question 2A. As stated in the Act, the objective of an air tour
management plan is to mitigate or prevent the ``significant adverse
effects'' of air tours.
What about effects that are less than significant, will those also
be mitigated?
Answer. Through its legal mandates including the Organic Act, the
NPS is required to make every effort to mitigate less than significant
impacts. The FAA has informed us that it has some authority and
precedent for mitigating less than significant impacts under its
organic statute. In the interagency meeting on January 28, 2004, the
NPS and FAA agreed to provide appropriate mitigation in ATMPs, where
justified, consistent with the agencies' relevant statutory
authorities.
Question 2B. Will the park service be responsible for determining
the level that park resources are affected by air tours?
Answer. Although the NPS has ``special expertise'' and under the
National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (NPATMA), jurisdiction
per NEPA for evaluating impacts to park resources, those determinations
will be made jointly with the FAA (see also response to Question 3
below).
Question 2C. How will effects on the safety of air tours be
determined?
Answer. The FAA will make that determination.
Question 2D. Is there agreement between the agencies on what a
significant adverse effect might be?
Answer. No, not at this time. This is a critical issue for both
agencies, and therefore, the FAA and the NPS have established a working
group to address this concern. The working group has not yet met, but
NPS and FAA look forward to working together to develop a mutually
acceptable definition.
Question 3. Does the NPS have adequate authority to make a
determination on the level of effect (either beneficial or adverse)
that air tour operations may have on national parks? Are these
determinations made separately or cooperatively?
Answer. The NPS has adequate legal authority to make a
determination regarding impacts that air tours may have on units of the
national park system--under previously existing authority.
Additionally, the NPATMA instructs the NPS to work with the FAA in
making such determinations over units of the national parks system. The
two agencies agree that determinations regarding impacts to park
resources will be made jointly and cooperatively, not separately, since
the Act requires both the FAA Administrator and the NPS Director sign
the environmental documents required under NEPA.
Question 4A. Even though the NPS has recently increased funding for
air tour management, the funding level appears to fall far short of the
40% agreed to in the MOU.
How does the NPS expect to resolve this?
Answer. The base budget for the ATMP has decreased. We are looking
into the use of other funds including Environmental Quality funds
(which must be used on court ordered or congressionally mandated EIS/
EA). The Natural Sound Program office has also identified base funding
needs that would be necessary to help underwrite the costs of the 40%
commitment to the FAA.
Question 4B. Has the inability to meet this obligation to the FAA
had any affect on the level that the NPS has been included in project
level decision-making?
Answer. Initially, yes; however, cooperation is improving. The
agencies are more collaborative since the January meeting of senior
officials from both agencies.
Question 4C. What about in the planning process?
Answer. See the answer to 4B above.
Question 5. Does the National Park Service have the information it
needs to determine whether a new entrant operator can be issued interim
operating authority? What about for applications to increase tours?
Answer. New entrants may be granted interim operating authority
only if the Director ``. . . determines that it would not create a
noise problem at the park or on the tribal lands.'' The NPS does not
currently have the information it needs to make the necessary
determinations regarding new entrants or applications for increases.
The NPS is working with the FAA to improve the accuracy of the
information from air tour operators that have interim operating
authority because the number of existing authorized operations in a
number of parks has a bearing on the consideration of increases and new
entrants. The NPS and FAA are also working collaboratively to establish
the criteria and processes necessary for making determinations on new
entrants and increases in accordance with the requirements of the
NPATMA.
Question 6. What is the status of the renewal agreement between the
Department of the Interior and local airport authorities for operating
the airport at Jackson Hole, Wyoming?
Answer. In order to remain eligible for FAA funding, the Jackson
Hole Airport must have at least 20 years remaining on their agreement
with the Department of the Interior. Since the existing agreement
expires on April 27, 2033, the critical date for the airport will occur
in 2013. The NPS has asked the Jackson Hole Airport Board to provide in
writing the specifics of their proposal regarding the use agreement.
Once we have received the information, a decision as to the most
appropriate course of action will be made.
Questions From Senator Akaka
Question 1. Does the Park Service have sufficient and adequate data
on which to base the decision of whether there is an adverse effect on
the natural soundscape of a Park?
Answer. No, not currently. However, the NPS is currently collecting
data through monitoring and modeling that will enable it to make such
determinations. Furthermore, the NPS and the FAA are working on
determining the thresholds for what constitutes a significant adverse
impact.
Question 2. Congress, has made it clear in the legislative history
accompanying the Air Tour Management Act that, even though the FAA is
the lead agency for the purpose of developing air tour management
plans, the National Park Service is responsible for determining the
impact of commercial air tours on park resources and visitor
experience. Has the FAA made it clear in its rule-making process and in
preparing additional guidance for implementing the Act that the NPS is
to play the lead role in developing impact assessments?
Answer. NPATMA specifies that FAA shall be the lead agency and NPS
a cooperating agency for purposes of complying with the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, but also goes further than the
CEQ regulations by directing that both agencies shall sign the
environmental decision document. Given the NPS' jurisdiction and
special expertise with regard to impacts on park resources and visitor
experiences and the FAA's jurisdiction and special expertise with
regard to the safety and environmental impacts of aircraft operations,
we will work with FAA to clearly outline the roles for these agencies
in the guidelines for development of ATMPS.
Question 3. What, in your mind, would represent a significant
adverse impact on a National Park in regard to the impacts of air
tours?
Answer. The NPS and FAA have established a working group to
consider this issue. From the NPS perspective, the general laws and
policies applicable to the National Park System provide some guidance
on what would represent a ``significant adverse impact''; but in any
given case, the NPS would need to examine the legislation specific to
that unit, its resources and values, other visitor uses, overall
management objectives, and reach a decision based upon the definition
developed by the NPS and the FAA.
Questiion 4. In the event of a tossup, as determined through
effective NEPA and scientific analysis, between an adverse impact on a
national park (or its fee-paying visitors) and an air tour operator's
historic level of use, which should take precedence in the decision?
Or, in your mind, how would this be resolved in the decision? How does
your idea of impact significance fit into this determination?
Answer. The Act is unequivocal in providing that impacts to park
resources or visitor use would take precedence over a historic ``use''
by an air tour operator. The Act states that when an ATMP limits the
number of commercial air tour operations over a national park during
specified time frame, the Administrator, in cooperation with the
Director, shall consider relevant factors including the following: the
safety record of the pilot, quiet aircraft technology, experience
flying over national park units, financial capability, training
programs for pilots, and responsiveness to criteria developed by the
NPS for the affected park. Historic use is only relevant with respect
to the allocation allowed for an existing air tour operator. More
specifically, allocations for interim operating authority are based on
an average of the air tour operations the year preceding the enactment
or the average of three years. The objective of the Act which is, ``. .
. to develop acceptable and effective measures to mitigate or prevent
the significant adverse impacts, if any, of commercial air tour
operations upon the natural and cultural resources . . .'', clearly
focuses on protecting park resources. The Act is straightforward in
that if the historic use is shown to have a significant adverse impact
upon a park unit, then the ATMP for that park must make recommendations
to change the historic use to an acceptable level that would mitigate
such impacts.
Question 5. How do you consider the idea of park resources and
values--their significance and ``uniqueness'' as established in
legislation--against the notion of requiring justification for
mitigating impacts including those that might be considered
significant?
Answer. While it is important to have, to the extent possible, a
universal standard for what constitutes a significant adverse impact,
each park presents a unique set of circumstances and resources to be
protected that requires the standard to be adaptable. Consequently, in
an interagency meeting held on January 28, 2004, both the NPS and the
FAA agreed that the specific purposes for which a park unit was
established as set forth in its enabling legislation, the resources and
values of that specific park unit, along with the more general tenets
outlined in the NPS Organic Act, must be factored into the
determination of what impacts from air tours warrant mitigation, These
factors will be considered in the NEPA analysis process for both
impacts that reach the level of ``significant adverse impact'' and
those that are adverse but less than significant.
Question 6. I (Senator Akaka) would appreciate It you could provide
me with the following information:
Question 6A. Total obligations for each respective agency for the
air tour management program from FY 2000 to FY 2004 (including
personnel costs, travel, and all relevant object class categories).
Answer. NPS obligations are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY2004..................................................... $573,217
FY2003..................................................... $931,258
FY2002..................................................... $946,683
FY2001..................................................... $947,651
FY2000..................................................... $429,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA Obligations are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY2004..................................................... $8,113,000
FY2003..................................................... $4,150,000
FY2002..................................................... $8,204,000
FY2001..................................................... $495,000
FY2000..................................................... $0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 6B. For FY 2003 and 2004, the President's requested and
enacted amounts for the air tour management program.
Answer. NPS amounts are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY Requested Enacted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003.................................... $1,004,000 $931,000
2004.................................... $939,000 $921,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA amounts are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY Requested Enacted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003.................................... $8,200,000 $4,150,000
2004.................................... $8,200,000 $8,113,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 6C. An estimate of the annual amount of funding needed by
both agencies to keep the implementation plan on schedule, assuming
implementation in approximately 20 parks per year.
Answer. The NPS Air Resources Division has identified a need of a
$2.74 million base operating increase in order to fulfill all aspects
of the Natural Sounds program including completing 10-20 ATMPs
annually. This represents an annual operating base of $3.66 million.
The NPS is responsible for 40% of the cost of preparing initial ATMPs.
The estimated annual amount for funding needed by the FAA to keep the
implementation plan on schedule is $9,081 million. These estimates,
however, have not been reviewed through the Budget process or evaluated
against other competing priorities. There may also be opportunities for
reducing these costs through improved efficiencies and greater
coordination with other programs or activities.