[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LIMITING ACCESS AND DAMAGING
GATEWAY ECONOMIES: EXAMINING
THE NATIONAL PARKS AIR TOUR
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND
INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, December 5, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-83
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
54-286 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Tom McClintock, CA CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY
Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
PAUL GOSAR, AZ, Chairman
MIKE COLLINS, GA, Vice Chair
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, NM, Ranking Member
Matt Rosendale, MT Ed Case, HI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Ruben Gallego, AZ
Mike Collins, GA Susie Lee, NV
Anna Paulina Luna, FL Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
---------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, December 5, 2023........................ 1
Statement of Members:
Gosar, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arizona................................................. 1
Stansbury, Hon. Melanie A., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Mexico.................................... 10
Statement of Witnesses:
Panel I:
Sauvajot, Ray, Associate Director, Natural Resource
Stewardship and Science, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, DC................. 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Questions submitted for the record....................... 7
Panel II:
Wells, John, Chairman of the Board, Military-Veterans
Advocacy, Slidell, Louisiana............................... 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Tomlin, Jake, President, Grand Canyon Scenic Airlines,
Boulder City, Nevada....................................... 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Questions submitted for the record....................... 33
Slater, Carl, Delegate, Navajo Nation Council, Window Rock,
Arizona.................................................... 36
Prepared statement of.................................... 38
Schlaefli, Mark A., President, Rushmore Helicopters, Custer,
South Dakota............................................... 43
Prepared statement of.................................... 45
Questions submitted for the record....................... 50
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Submissions for the Record by Representative Gosar
Southwest Safaris, Letter dated July 13, 2023............ 72
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON LIMITING ACCESS AND DAMAGING GATEWAY ECONOMIES:
EXAMINING THE NATIONAL PARKS AIR TOUR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
----------
Tuesday, December 5, 2023
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:32 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Paul Gosar
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Gosar, Rosendale, Collins;
Stansbury, and Case.
Also present: Representatives Johnson of SD and Nehls.
Dr. Gosar. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
The Subcommittee meeting today is to hear testimony on
limiting access and damaging gateway economies, examining the
National Parks Air Tour Management Program.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members testifying today
be allowed to sit with the Subcommittee, give their testimony,
and participate in the hearing from the dais: the gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Troy Nehls; the gentleman from South Dakota,
Mr. Dusty Johnson.
Any additional Members?
Without objection, so ordered.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority
Member. I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other
Members' statements be made part of the hearing record if they
are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3.
Without objection, so ordered.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Dr. Gosar. Good morning, everyone, and thank you to our
witnesses for joining us today to examine the National Park Air
Tour Management Program, and how it can limit access to the
National Park System for millions of Americans and damage the
economies of gateway communities.
Unfortunately, the National Park Service has abused the
National Parks Air Tour Management Program over the years to
eliminate air tour flights over certain national park units,
including some of the most popular destinations accessed across
the nation without consulting stakeholders, including local
communities, operators, and national park overflight advisory
groups.
Just this month, the National Park Service published an Air
Tour Management Plan that essentially prohibits air tours from
both the Badlands National Park and Mount Rushmore National
Memorial. Currently, an average of 1,425 air tours are
conducted over the Badlands National Park every year, and 3,914
over Mount Rushmore National Memorial. These ATMPs will
undoubtedly put air tour operators in these regions out of
business.
My state of Arizona has 22 national park units, with an
average of over 10 million visitors per year coming to
experience our beauty and partake in the recreational
activities. The economic impact is over $1.8 billion per year.
The economies of the gateway communities that support our
national parks benefit from the air tour industry, which
provides valuable experiences for visitors and critical
services to that community. Air tour operators in Arizona have
already been hit hard by ATMPs. I am concerned that upcoming
plans will harm the economy of my state by eliminating air
tours and, consequently, destroy the industry in affected
regions.
The National Park Service is currently developing the ATMPs
for the Canyon de Chelly National Monument in Arizona. I find
it very troubling that, like other recent ATMPs, the National
Park Service is failing to consult with the National Parks
Overflights Advisory Group, which leads to terrible economic
consequences for gateway communities, serious safety concerns,
and limited access to the National Park Service.
While the National Park Service decided to consult with
these tribes for this ATMP, they have not, to my knowledge,
reached out to those who represent those who would be most
impacted, such as groups representing veterans, seniors,
persons living with disabilities, local gateway communities,
and local elected officials, as well as local tool operators.
Back in July, Deputy Director Reynolds came before this
Committee and committed to consulting with the National Parks
Overflights Advisory Group for forthcoming ATMPs. I hope to get
an update on this from the National Park Service today, because
what I am hearing from the members of the National Parks
Overflight Advisory Group is not consistent with the commitment
made to this Committee.
Ensuring that Americans have access to our nation's most
iconic landscapes and natural wonders is a priority for this
Committee. ATMPs that prohibit or restrict air tours greatly
limit access to the National Park System for millions of
Americans with physical limitations, including veterans and
others with disabilities or chronic pain, older people, young
children, and more. This is unfortunate, because experiencing
nature can be therapeutic and healing for many, particularly
for our nation's veterans who struggle with severe mental and
physical health issues. Our veterans deserve better. Congress
and the Administration should strive to improve access in any
way possible.
ATMPs also limit access for those with limited time and
resources to travel. Many of the most sought-after destinations
in the National Park Service System are difficult to get to,
and many visitors simply do not have the time to, for example,
spend a week hiking in and out of a national park, and others
cannot afford the high cost of an extended stay. Air tours can
provide a more convenient option to experience our nation's
natural wonders.
Poorly designed ATMPs also affect emergency services that
air tour operators provide for surrounding communities. As a
recent example, after the devastating Maui fires this last
summer air tour operators sprang into action and rapidly
delivered approximately 70,000 pounds of critical supplies to
Lahaina and Maui, including food, medical supplies, generators,
water, gasoline, and more.
Additionally, air tour operators employ pilots across the
nation who are increasingly in demand in fields such as
emergency services, law enforcement, firefighting, and national
defense. The air tour industry provides an irreplaceable
workforce pipeline for these fields.
Air tours are critical for ensuring access for millions of
Americans, and at the same time support gateway economies and
emergency services. I encourage the National Park Service to
work with the Committee and the National Parks Overflights
Advisory Group to eliminate barriers to access the National
Park System and address overly restrictive, uninformed ATMPs.
With that, I now will move to our witness, Mr. Ray
Sauvajot, the Associate Director of the National Resources
Stewardship and Science for the National Park Service.
Let me remind the witness that under Committee Rules, he
must limit his oral statements to 5 minutes, but his entire
statement will appear in the hearing record.
To begin your testimony, please press the ``on'' button on
the microphone.
We will be using timing lights. When you begin, the light
will turn green. When you start seeing yellow, wrap it up, and
when you see it red, please complete your statement.
The Chairman now recognizes Associate Director Sauvajot for
5 minutes.
Did I say that right?
OK, thank you very much. You are recognized, sir.
STATEMENT OF RAY SAUVAJOT, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCE
STEWARDSHIP AND SCIENCE, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Sauvajot. Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury, and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
present the Department of the Interior's views on air tour
management over national parks. I would like to summarize my
statement and submit my full written statement in the record.
Commercial air tours have been occurring over national
parks for decades. The potential impact of air tours to
national park resources and visitor experiences were recognized
by Congress in 1987, when the National Parks Overflights Act
was enacted. The law required the National Park Service to
conduct a study to determine the minimum altitude for air tours
over all national park units, and to identify any problems
associated with overflight by aircraft.
The NPS submitted its report to Congress in 1994. In 1997,
the FAA, Federal Aviation Administration, and the National Park
Service established a National Parks Overflights Working Group
with members from the air tour industry, environmental groups,
and tribes that was charged with developing a plan for
instituting flight restrictions over national parks.
In the year 2000, Congress enacted the National Parks Air
Tour Management Act, which reflected the recommendations of the
National Parks Overflights Working Group. This Act required the
NPS and the FAA to complete Air Tour Management Plans, or
ATMPs. The objective of ATMPs is to develop acceptable and
effective measures to mitigate or prevent the significant
impacts, if any, of commercial air tour operations on natural
and cultural resources, visitor experiences, and tribal lands.
Given the distinct missions of the NPS and the FAA and
their differing policies regarding environmental analyses,
satisfying the law's requirement that environmental decision
documents for ATMPs be approved by both agencies proved
challenging. No ATMPs were completed for many years.
In 2019, a mandamus suit was filed seeking to compel the
NPS and the FAA to prepare ATMPs or voluntary agreements. In
May 2020, the court granted the petition and ordered the
agencies to develop and implement a plan for completing ATMPs
or voluntary agreements for 23 parks, as required by law.
Since May 2020, the NPS and the FAA have devoted
substantial effort to resolving issues in preparing ATMPs and
voluntary agreements. Eighteen parks have been completed to
date, and agencies are on track to complete the remaining ATMPs
or voluntary agreements by the court-approved deadlines.
The team has worked extensively with the individual
national park units to understand the potential effects of
current air tour operations on park resources and visitor
experience, and to consult with tribes and other stakeholders.
The NPS and the FAA have held a public meeting and a 30-day
public comment period for each draft ATMP. Tribes and air tour
operators were invited to consult in the section 106 process.
The agencies also met multiple times with the National Park's
Overflights Advisory Group to discuss the ATMP development
process. Gateway communities had the opportunity to participate
in public meetings and in the public comment process.
In 15 of the 18 parks where the NPS and the FAA have
completed ATMPs or volunteer agreements since 2020, the number
of air tours has not changed from current levels. Where an ATMP
does limit air tour operations over a park, operators are not
precluded from using their aircraft for other business ventures
or conducting air tours elsewhere in the region.
While there may be effects to individual operators in cases
where air tours have been reduced or eliminated, any economic
impact to the gateway community is expected to be minor. Air
tour operations, where they occur, represent one relatively
small component of the overall economic value the park
contributes to gateway economies and surrounding communities.
The NPS and the FAA continue working closely together. This
interagency effort reflects close collaboration by both
agencies, and has led to unprecedented progress toward
resolving the complex and challenging issue of air tour
management at national parks. The agencies are confident that
these efforts will allow them to meet their statutory
obligations by permitting commercial air tours over national
parks when and where appropriate, and in ways that protect park
natural and cultural resources, visitor experiences, and the
interests and perspectives of tribes and Native Hawaiian
organizations.
Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury, thank you again
for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I would be
happy to answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sauvajot follows:]
Prepared Statement of Raymond M. Sauvajot, Associate Director, Natural
Resource Stewardship and Science, National Park Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department
of the Interior's views on air tour management over national parks.
Commercial air tours have been occurring over national parks for
decades. This activity and its potential impacts to national park
resources and visitor experience were recognized by Congress in 1987
when the National Parks Overflights Act was enacted. This law required
the National Park Service (NPS) to conduct a study to determine a
minimum altitude for air tours over all National Park System units, and
to identify any problems associated with overflight by aircraft of
units of the National Park System. In compliance with this requirement,
the NPS prepared a report entitled Report on the Effects of Aircraft
Overflights on the National Park System, which was submitted to
Congress in 1994. In 1997, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
and the NPS established a National Parks Overflights Working group,
with members from the air tour industry, environmental groups, and
Tribes, that was charged with developing a plan for instituting flight
restrictions over National Parks.
Following more than a decade of studies, working groups, and
administrative planning and regulatory efforts, Congress enacted the
National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (NPATMA), which
reflected the recommendations and consensus work product of the
National Parks Overflights Working Group. NPATMA required the NPS and
the FAA to complete Air Tour Management Plans (ATMP) and issue a joint
record of decision, after which time air tours of parks not in
compliance with an ATMP would be prohibited. In the interim, while
ATMPs were being developed, NPATMA required FAA to issue interim
operating authority to existing tour operators based on then-current,
actual use by the operators. The objective of the ATMPs, as defined in
NPATMA, 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, visitor
experiences, and tribal lands.''
The mission of the NPS is to conserve and provide for the enjoyment
of scenery, natural and historic objects, and wildlife in parks and to
leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. The
mission of the FAA is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace
system in the world. Given the distinct and different missions of the
two agencies and their differing policies regarding environmental
analyses, satisfying NPATMA's requirement that environmental decision
documents for ATMPs be approved by both agencies proved challenging.
In recognition of these challenges, Congress amended NPATMA in
2012. The amendments authorized FAA and NPS to jointly enter into
voluntary agreements with air tour operators in lieu of developing
ATMPs. Voluntary agreements are contracts intended to ``address the
management issues necessary to protect the resources of such park and
visitor use of such park without compromising aviation safety or the
air traffic control system.'' In contrast to the ATMPs, voluntary
agreements are not subject to analysis under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA).
The 2012 amendments exempted national parks with 50 or fewer tours
annually from the provisions of NPATMA requiring ATMPs or voluntary
agreements, provided that the NPS may withdraw an exemption if it
determines that an ATMP or a voluntary agreement is necessary to
protect park resources or visitor use and enjoyment. The amendments
also added reporting requirements for operators conducting commercial
air tour operations over national parks.
No ATMPs were completed in the first 19 years after the enactment
of NPATMA because the FAA and the NPS were unable to reach resolution
on challenges that precluded the completion of ATMPs. Ultimately, the
FAA and the NPS shifted their focus from preparing ATMPs to completing
voluntary agreements. In the seven years after NPATMA was amended to
allow for voluntary agreements, voluntary agreements were completed for
four National Park System units.
On February 14, 2019, Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility and Hawaii Coalition Malama Pono filed a mandamus suit
in the US. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seeking an order
compelling the NPS and the FAA to prepare ATMPs or voluntary agreements
for seven parks. Finding that the agencies had a statutory duty under
NPATMA to complete ATMPs or voluntary agreements for 23 parks, in May
2020, the court granted the mandamus petition and ordered the FAA and
the NPS to develop and implement a plan for completing ATMPs or
voluntary agreements for 23 parks as required by NPATMA. Per the court
order, the agencies were to complete all ATMPs within two years or
provide specific concrete reasons why it would take longer. The court
retained jurisdiction over the case to approve the agencies' plan and
monitor the agencies' progress. In response to multiple motions to
enforce the court's order filed by petitioners, on June 21, 2022, the
court issued an order directing the agencies to submit a joint
supplemental report, signed by the heads of both agencies, with
proposed firm dates for bringing each park into compliance with NPATMA.
On July 21, 2022, the agencies complied with that order by filing a
Joint Supplemental Report. Under that report, all required ATMPs or
voluntary agreements will be completed by December 31, 2024.
Since May 2020, the NPS and the FAA have devoted substantial
efforts to preparing ATMPs or voluntary agreements as required by
NPATMA. Issues with respect to NEPA and interim operating authority
that precluded the completion of ATMPs previously have been resolved by
the two agencies. ATMPs or voluntary agreements for 18 parks have been
completed to date, and the agencies are on track to complete the
remaining ATMPs or voluntary agreements by the court approved
deadlines. The interagency team has worked extensively with the
individual National Park System units to understand the potential
effects of current air tour operations on park resources and visitor
experience and to consult with Tribes, air tour operators, and
stakeholders. This work has also included establishing ambient baseline
acoustic conditions and modeling existing air tour conditions based on
operator reports.
The FAA and NPS initiated planning processes for all covered parks
simultaneously and consolidated public announcements and other
administrative procedures to improve efficiency. The agencies agreed to
use current conditions indicated by actual flight data reported by the
operators as the baseline for planning and analysis. Each park advanced
its ATMP work from this baseline, and considered potential impacts of
the air tours to park resources and visitor experience compared to the
current condition, and evaluated alternatives, as necessary or
appropriate under NPATMA and NEPA. All ATMPs or voluntary agreements
completed to date have incorporated measures necessary to comply with
NPATMA based on the work with each park unit and consultation with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service
under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and consultation with
Tribes and other consulting parties under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act. In addition, all ATMPs have included
adaptive management measures that are tied to air tour impacts and park
conditions to ensure the continued effectiveness of each ATMP based on
relevant and appropriate new information.
Setting specific routes and minimum altitudes for flights,
installing and using flight monitoring equipment to enable the agencies
to monitor and ensure compliance with ATMPs, setting time of day
parameters and daily flight numbers, and setting temporary no fly
periods are some examples of protective measures that could potentially
be included in the ATMPs or voluntary agreements to mitigate or avoid
impacts to park resources and visitor experience. Incorporating these
measures into the ATMPs or voluntary agreements allows the agencies to
address impacts to park resource and visitor experience concerns and
respond to Tribal interests, while continuing to allow air tours over
National Park System units where appropriate.
Under NPATMA, prior to completing an ATMP, the agencies are
required to hold at least one public meeting and to make the draft ATMP
available to the public through publication in the Federal Register.
The NPS and the FAA have held a public meeting and announced a 30-day
public comment period for each draft ATMP thus far. They invited
participation of consulting parties, which included Tribes and air tour
operators, in the Section 106 process. The agencies also met multiple
times with the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group to discuss the
process by which the ATMPs are being developed. Gateway communities had
the opportunity to participate in public meetings and in the public
comment process for the ATMPs.
The NPS and the FAA carefully considered all comments received
during the public comment period and the Section 106 process for all
completed ATMPs and are continuing to do so for the ATMPs and voluntary
agreements that have not yet been completed. Responses to comments are
included as part of the documentation for all ATMPs.
The NPS and the FAA have completed ATMPs or voluntary agreements
for 18 parks since 2020. In 15 of those parks, the number of air tours
has not changed from current levels. In two parks, air tours have been
eliminated in direct response to concerns raised by Tribes. The NPS and
the FAA are proposing reductions in the number of air tours at an
additional four parks, whose ATMPs are still being developed. These
proposed changes would enhance protection for the parks' natural and
cultural landscapes and resources, respect Tribal and Native Hawaiian
sacred sites and ceremonial areas, while providing a high-quality
visitor experience.
In over 70% of parks for which ATMPs and voluntary agreements are
being or have been developed, the number of air tours was not reduced
from the current levels as reported by the operators. For parks where
the number of operations is not changing, the FAA and the NPS do not
anticipate effects to the gateway communities. Where an ATMP limits the
opportunities for air tour operators and ancillary businesses to
generate revenue from tours conducted over the park, operators are not
precluded from using their aircraft for other business ventures or
conducting air tours elsewhere within the region. While there may be
effects to individual operators in cases where air tours have been
reduced or eliminated, any economic impact to the gateway community is
expected to be minor. Based on NPS visitor spending effects analyses,
park visitation results in substantial economic benefits to the local
economy and supports local jobs. Air tour operations, where they occur,
represent one relatively small component of the overall economic value
the park contributes to the economies of gateway communities.
The NPS and FAA continue working closely together and are confident
that they will meet the court-imposed deadlines to complete all
required ATMPs or voluntary agreements. This interagency effort
reflects close collaboration by both agencies and has led to
unprecedented progress toward resolving the complex and challenging
issue of air tour management at national parks. The agencies are
confident that these efforts will allow them to meet their statutory
obligations under NPATMA and other relevant laws by permitting
commercial air tours over national parks when and where appropriate,
and in ways that protect park natural and cultural resources, visitor
experiences, and the interests and perspectives of Tribes and Native
Hawaiian Organizations.
Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury, thank you again for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Associate Director Sauvajot,
Natural Resource Stewardship and Science, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior
Mr. Sauvajot did not submit responses to the Committee by the
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Questions Submitted by Representative Gosar
Question 1. How would National Parks Service (NPS) describe the
role that the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group (NPOAG) has
played in the Air Tour Management Plan (ATMP) process?
1a) What specific input from commercial air tour operators and
general aviation representatives on the NPOAG had been incorporated in
the ATMP process?
1b) What specific contemporary input from Rushmore Helicopters,
Black Hills Aerial Adventures and Badger Helicopters had been
incorporated in the ATMP process?
Question 2. What shortcomings exist with the noise and operational
data used by NPS to develop the ATMPs?
2a) Are noise models and data developed in 2003, 2007 and 2012
considered to be high quality scientific data as required by NPS 4.1.1?
Question 3. How were the seasonality aspects of the commercial air
tour industry considered in the ATMPs?
Question 4. How does NPS justify completely eliminating overflights
in some ATMPs?
4a) How does NPS envision the restrictions included in its ATMPs
will affect the economic viability of commercial air tour operators and
related businesses in local communities, specifically in park units
facing 100% elimination?
4b) Why were the economic impacts to operators and local
communities and businesses not evaluated as a part of the ATMP process?
Question 5. Why are the ATMP's for Badlands and Mount Rushmore
nearly identical, when the parks could not be more different?
Question 6. In effort to meet the Court-imposed deadline for
developing and implementing ATMPs, what processes has NPS expedited?
6a) If NPS was afforded additional time to develop and implement
ATMPs, could the ATMPs be improved?
Question 7. Are any NPS employees members of, or offer material
support to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility?
Question 8. How is safety of the national airspace system (NAS)
prioritized in the development of ATMPs?
8a) Can you explain how safety risk assessments were accomplished
with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for ATMP?
8b) Are you aware of risks to air commerce and the need for risk
assessment?
Question 9. Why were there significant differences in the roles of
local FAA Flight Standards District Offices (FSDO) between different
ATMPs?
9a) What were the roles of each FAA office that has been involved
in the ATMP process?
9b) What role have regional FAA FSDOs had in the ATMP process?
9c) What risk assessments were conducted and considered for non-
tour operations that are not restricted inside of the park boundary
such as photography flights or passenger transport flights?
9d) Why did NPS dismiss or ignore the recommendations provided by
the Rapid City FSDO?
9e) Why was the helicopter specialist and principal operations
inspector in the Rapid City FSDO removed from any involvement with the
ATMP?
Question 10. How does the National Parks Service (NPS) envision the
restrictions included in its Air Tour Management Plans will affect
access for certain populations including, veterans, elderly, and people
with mobility challenges?
10a) How can you assure the flying public that the removal of
aerial tours at Mt Rushmore and the Badlands will not discriminate
against travelers with mobility challenges?
10b) Was the ADA consulted or reviewed in the preparation of the
ATMP?
Question 11. How does NPS envision the restrictions included in its
ATMPs will affect essential services like search and rescue and
firefighting?
11a) How does NPS envision the restrictions included in its ATMPs
will affect the helicopter pilot shortage?
Question 12. With advanced air mobility (AAM) or electric vertical
takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft expected to commence commercial
operations in 2024, how are the environmental benefits of these
aircraft incorporated in ATMPs?
Questions Submitted by Representative Case
Question 1. How many public comments were received during the
comment periods for each Air Tour Management Plan (ATMP) to date?
Question 2. Do the agencies plan to release a summary of the
comments received for each ATMP?
Question 3. Do the ATMPs as currently drafted help meet the overall
noise and air quality goals of the individual parks?
Question 4. Does the National Park Service (NPS) have regulations
for air and noise pollution from on-the-ground sources like
recreational vehicles? How were those regulations developed?
Question 5. You stated in our hearing that the NPS implements a
number of strategies and policies to increase access for veterans, the
elderly and individuals with disabilities. Can the NPS provide a
summary of those efforts for each park subject to ATMPs?
Question 6. Does the NPS collect data on how many individuals take
air tours and also visit the same park on the ground? Does the NPS
believe that eliminating air tours over national park units with ATMPs
that propose their elimination will significantly increase the number
of visitors on the ground?
Question 7. Which national park units have revenue sharing
agreements with air tour operators? How much revenue was collected for
the NPS through these agreements in each of the past 10 fiscal years?
Question 8. Which national park units had efforts to develop
voluntary agreements with tour operators? For those units which
attempted to develop a voluntary agreement but were unable to do so,
please describe the conflicts which required an ATMP to be developed.
Question 9. The Environmental Assessments for both Hawai`i
Volcanoes and Haleakal? state, ``Native Hawaiians have consistently
noted that the persistent air tours over the Park unreasonably
interfere with the silence needed to perform ceremonies conducted by
Native Hawaiian practitioners at these sacred sites, some of which rely
on hearing natural sounds'' (page 92 and 80 respectively). Recently, I
wrote to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) about its Section
106 consultation process, and its finding of No Adverse Effect from the
Hawaii Volcanoes Air Tour Plan. However the Hawai`i State Historic
Preservation Division disagrees, writing to FAA stating the proposed
plan will ``result in an adverse effect to TCPs [Traditional Cultural
Properties] and traditional cultural practices.'' The Hawai`i State
Historic Preservation Division also wrote, ``Despite holding numerous
consultation meetings, FAA has not made a good faith effort to consult,
rather they have only moved through the motions to comply with the
four-step process and 36 CFR Sec. 800. The FAA has not taken into
consideration how the air tour management plan could be amended to
avoid, minimize, or mitigate effects to historic properties, nor have
they amended their determination of effect to consider these effects,
which have been raised by the SHPO and consulting parties throughout
the consultation meetings including those held recently.'' This view
was echoed by the Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
How does the NPS justify moving forward with these ATMPs over the
concerns of the State Historic Preservation Office and Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation? How do the agencies propose to address the
significant impacts on Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners and
historic properties?
Question 10. The forest birds in Haleakala require proactive
protection to ensure their survival. The plan states that ``at least
two federally endangered forest bird species within the Park, the
kiwikiu and `akohekohe, are at imminent risk of extinction, with fewer
than 200 and 1800 individuals, respectively, left in the wild. In
addition to impacts to the birds themselves, aircraft noise adversely
impacts the NPS's ability to monitor federally protected Hawaiian
forest birds, which is done primarily by acoustic-based surveys to
detect birdsongs'' (page 13). If the NPS cannot conduct the studies,
the agency could be violating several laws from those governing the NPS
to the Endangered Species Act. Why isn't the federal government using
the precautionary principle? Why would you put the forest birds at risk
in order to allow commercial air tours? Do you agree that allowing air
tours is discretionary and ensuring the survival of the birds is
required under law?
Question 11. The agencies have stated in the draft Haleakala plan
that natural and cultural resources, visitor experiences and Native
Hawaiian cultural sites and interactions will be negatively impacted by
commercial air tours. The current noisy conditions in the park are
violating laws and policies, slight management changes will not protect
the park. The plan seeks to minimize flights to one path, but this
likely to be difficult to strictly enforce. Does this comply with Park
Service policies to protect natural sounds? Why did the agencies not
select the most protective alternative as the agency's laws require?
Question 12. Why did NPS/FAA recommend air tours over Bryce Canyon
without a helicopter vibrational impact study? Shouldn't the National
Park Service use the precautionary principle to avoid any damage to the
very resource that inspired the protection of this park?
Questions Submitted by Representative Troy E. Nehls
Question 1. Was the Americans with Disabilities Act consulted or
reviewed in the preparation of ATMPs? If so, please elaborate.
Question 2. How can NPS assure the flying public that the removal
of aerial tours at Mt. Rushmore and the Badlands will not discriminate
against travelers with mobility challenges?
Question 3. If ATMPs recommend eliminating, phasing out, or
significantly reducing air tours, how will NPS ensure that those who
are physically immobile will be able to access the National Park
System? Specifically, with traversing NPS landscapes that are
inaccessible by wheelchairs, power scooters, or other types of mobility
assistance vehicles.
Question 4. Please explain the involvement and input from
stakeholders in the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group,
specifically pertaining to commercial air tour operators and industry
representatives. How was their input integrated into the development of
ATMPs?
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much, Mr. Sauvajot, I appreciate
it.
I am now going to recognize the Ranking Member, Ms.
Stansbury, for her opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MELANIE A. STANSBURY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to
everyone. Thank you, Director, for being here this morning.
As we all know, our national parks play an essential role
in preserving our most treasured landscapes, our cultural
landscapes, our historic, natural, and cultural resources. Our
parks are our refuges for more than 300 million people from all
over the world who visit them for recreation, to enjoy the
outdoors, and for cultural purposes, as our communities do. Our
veterans use them as a place for respite. Many species,
including those who are endangered, use them for survival and
vital ecosystems. Our families connect with the natural world
through them. They host weddings, remembrances, and all manner
of life-changing experiences. They are a treasured place for
solitude and peacefulness.
And, of course, our national parks exist on Indigenous
lands. They carry thousands of years of history of our tribal
and pueblo communities, and our tribal communities continue to
practice and use these landscapes for cultural needs. They also
sustain these lands as original stewards.
Private flyover tours are a special view of our parks. And,
of course, it is a wonderful opportunity in many of these
treasured landscapes for our visitors who are not otherwise
able to see them from the ground or to experience them in other
ways. But they can also ruin the experience of visitors, and
they can disturb tribal sacred ceremonies and practices and
other community activities. For far too long these tours were
allowed to happen without standards in place to protect our
resources and those communities.
Despite Congress passing a law in 2000 requiring regulation
of air tours over our parks, agency disagreements held up
progress for nearly two decades. It took a lawsuit in 2020 to
finally spark action.
And, finally, as we have heard this morning, National Parks
and the Federal Aviation Authority are now in the process of
developing and implementing air tour management plans specific
to each park. These plans set in place rules for when, where,
and how these flights can take place, and include rules about
the types of aircraft that can be used for that.
Communities in and around our parks, especially our tribal
communities, must have a seat at the table in developing these
individual management plans.
I recognize that air tour operators provide a vital service
that many seek out as a part of their experience of our parks.
However, we can't just put economic opportunity and benefit of
this industry across the enjoyment of millions of users and, of
course, the cultural and natural uses of these public spaces.
We do need reasonable limitations, where appropriate, to ensure
that these resources are protected, and that everybody can
enjoy our parks, and that our cultural resources can be
protected in the process.
And, in particular, we know that many of our Hawaiian
communities are both impacted by and take advantage of these
opportunities. And I would like, Mr. Chairman, to yield the
remainder of my time to Mr. Case.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Ranking Member and Mr. Chair. And I
say with respect to the Chair and to my Majority colleagues who
will be asking questions at this hearing, but this hearing is
nothing more or less than a part of a concerted effort to
disrupt, to upset, to halt a decades-old, inclusive process
that was intended and is ordered by the courts to implement a
decades old law that was responsive to an even further-into-
the-past decades-old problem, which continues to this day. And
that problem is the attempted extraction of profit from our
national parks at the expense of all who so much enjoy our
national parks.
The bottom line here is that our Americans across the
country unanimously support preserving our treasured national
parks. In fact, we had 312 visitations to our parks in 2022.
And although this hearing clearly aims to show that managing
air tours above our parks is unfairly harming an industry, what
is really happening is an attempt to put the economic benefit
of a tiny minority consisting of tour helicopter manufacturers
and operators in a priority position over the long-term
preservation and enjoyment of our parks by the vast majority.
The Air Tour Management Plan of 2020 was a good, solid
plan. It should have been implemented years ago. It is now
being implemented on a completely inclusive process in which
people have the opportunity to participate, and we should allow
this implementation to continue.
The questions will get into some of these details, but
let's remember the context of what is really going on here
today.
Thank you, Madam Ranking Member.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much. I now recognize the
gentleman from Georgia for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sauvajot, thank you for being here, as well. And I
would like to start out by asking you about your current role
as the Associate Director of Natural Resource Stewardship and
Science for the National Park Service. So, you have been in
this role since 2014, is that correct, nearly a decade?
Mr. Sauvajot. That sounds correct, yes.
Mr. Collins. In this role, and this is just another simple
yes-or-no question, you have on at least one occasion served as
a liaison between the National Park Service and the Council on
Environmental Quality, correct, when it comes to matters
pertaining to the Service?
Mr. Sauvajot. As a liaison with the Council on
Environmental Quality?
Mr. Collins. Right.
Mr. Sauvajot. I am not sure if I would characterize it as a
liaison, but I do have responsibility over environmental
programs in the National Park Service, and we follow the
policies and guidelines that are produced by the Council of
Environmental Quality.
Mr. Collins. So, you have worked with the Council on
Environmental Quality when it comes to matters between the
National Park Service and----
Mr. Sauvajot. We do consult with them if we have questions,
and like I said, they provide us policy that we use to
implement NEPA, for example.
Mr. Collins. I am going to take that as a yes. I would say
that is a yes, correct?
Mr. Sauvajot. Yes.
Mr. Collins. OK. Over the last year at any time, did you
work with any staff at CEQ on matters pertaining to a lease
between the Floyd Bennett Field portion of the Gateway National
Recreation Area and the city of New York? That is a yes or no.
Mr. Sauvajot. No. Personally, not with any individuals at
CEQ.
Mr. Collins. Not personally, but on behalf of the Park
Service.
Mr. Sauvajot. Well, I understand that the Department is
working with staff from this Committee on questions and issues
related to this, so I would defer to the Department on that
question in terms of the specific interactions and how that
process has been----
Mr. Collins. Well, I hope you understand that this
Committee does have primary jurisdiction over the National Park
Service, Department of the Interior, and CEQ. So, I would think
that is very much a question that we should be asking and you
could be answering.
Mr. Sauvajot. Yes, I absolutely agree. I understand there
is interest on this Committee on this topic, and I would be
happy to take that question back.
Mr. Collins. But over the last year, did you work with any
staff at CEQ on these matters?
Mr. Sauvajot. I did not work with staff on this matter
personally.
Mr. Collins. With the staff at CEQ?
Mr. Sauvajot. CEQ is among the many people that have been
involved in the issue of understanding appropriate----
Mr. Collins. So, did you work with CEQ on matters of the
Floyd Bennett project there?
Mr. Sauvajot. CEQ was consulted.
Mr. Collins. So, that is a yes, as well, correct?
Mr. Sauvajot. Yes, they were consulted through our
Department.
Mr. Collins. Well, who at CEQ was your primary contact?
Mr. Sauvajot. I do not know, because I did not have a
contact with them.
Mr. Collins. You consulted with them, but you didn't have a
primary contact?
Mr. Sauvajot. I was not personally involved in that
consultation, so I do not know the name of a contact.
I do know that this is an issue that staff from this
Committee is working on with the Department of the Interior.
And again, I would defer to the Department's efforts----
Mr. Collins. Well, who at the National Park Service or the
Department of the Interior directed you to meet with CEQ
regarding the lease or potential lease, including the use of
alternative arrangements for this?
Mr. Sauvajot. This was not an issue where there was a
direction to develop that----
Mr. Collins. No one at the Department of the Interior or
National Parks instructed you, even though you were meeting and
consulting? I am having a hard time----
Mr. Sauvajot. It is common in environmental documents to
ensure that we are meeting the requirements and the policy
stipulations of the Council on Environmental Quality, and that
is something that is not required or----
Mr. Collins. It may not be required, but you did. You did
meet. So, under whose direction at either National Parks or the
Department of the Interior directed you----
Mr. Sauvajot. I guess I am confused, because it wasn't
really direction, it was just part of the process that we
typically go through on topics like that.
Mr. Collins. So, who is in charge of the National Park
Service or the Department of the Interior on this whole project
that was directly over you?
Mr. Sauvajot. I work for a Deputy Director who then works
for the Director of the National Park Service.
And if there are questions specifically about the
Department's role, I understand, again, that this Committee is
working with the Department, and I would defer those questions
to the Department.
Mr. Collins. Did you have the opportunity to discuss this
lease or potential lease with anyone at the city of New York?
Mr. Sauvajot. I did not, no.
Mr. Collins. Did you discuss this lease or potential lease
with anyone with the state of New York?
Mr. Sauvajot. I personally have not had those
conversations.
Mr. Collins. What about the Governor's office?
Mr. Sauvajot. Same.
Mr. Collins. OK, Mr. Chairman, that is all I have. I yield
back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. The Ranking Member is now
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Stansbury. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Obviously, I think the line of questioning has deviated
pretty significantly from the purpose of this hearing, which is
to talk about flyovers and national parks. And we have already
had multiple hearings and also multiple votes in this Committee
and a Floor vote on the issue that was just discussed. So, I
think it would be appropriate for the Majority to take their
inquiries outside of this hearing on that topic.
Mr. Director, let's get back to the topic at hand. For us
in New Mexico, our public lands are Indigenous lands. They are
the historic lands of our communities. And it is very important
for us that our communities have a seat at the table in any
kind of consultation regarding our national parks or any lands
that fall under Federal jurisdiction.
In your testimony this morning, you talked a little bit
about the process by which you are developing these flyover
plans. In New Mexico, we don't have a lot of flyover parks, but
I think it is of interest to our communities, as well as many
traditional communities that use these parks, to really
understand what does your tribal consultation process look like
for these individual plans, and what does that community
engagement and stakeholder engagement process look like.
Mr. Sauvajot. OK, I am happy to answer that question. Thank
you very much for that question.
Involvement by American Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian
groups is an important part of the air tour management planning
process. The agencies have consulted with tribes that either
have tribal lands adjacent to national parks with air tours, or
attach historic and cultural significance to resources within
national parks. So, it is part of the process.
That process occurs through the formal process that
involves the section 106 process, but also through Nation-to-
Nation consultation with Indian tribes, as well. It has been a
key part of the process.
Ms. Stansbury. Excellent. And Mr. Chairman, I would like to
yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Case.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Ranking Member.
Mr. Sauvajot, first of all, we have over 20 national parks
under the ATMP process right now. Is that right?
Mr. Sauvajot. Yes. The court identified 23 parks, and some
of these parks are kind of connected. So, depending on how you
count, it is 23,24.
Mr. Case. OK. And you have concluded some of those ATMPs
through a process that has been approved by the court. For
others you have actually entered into voluntary agreements with
the air tour operators under which they are allowed to continue
operations in certain circumstances. And then, for a smaller
minority of those parks, you are actually in an active process
of working through the concerns. Is that correct?
Mr. Sauvajot. Yes, that is correct. The law provides two
avenues for developing these plans. One is the Air Tour
Management Plan, or ATMP. The other is voluntary agreement. And
we are using both of those tools to help meet the statutory
requirements, to identify when and where air tours may occur
over national parks in ways that protect natural and cultural
resources, visitor experiences, and the concerns of tribal
communities.
Mr. Case. And that is in the law itself, right, that we are
implementing.
Mr. Sauvajot. Yes.
Mr. Case. Those are the goals of this law, to protect the
natural and cultural resources, to accommodate and protect the
rights of our tribal and Native Hawaiian organizations and
visitor experience.
Mr. Sauvajot. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Case. OK. And in those ATMPs that have been approved,
or the voluntary agreements, or your draft ATMPs, most of them,
not all, but most of them do allow for continued operation of
air tours over our parks, right?
Mr. Sauvajot. Yes, that is correct. For most of the air
tour management plans that have been advanced to date and
approved, they continue to allow the current number of air
tours that have been operating in those parks.
In other instances, where we are continuing to do our work,
there are efforts underway now to evaluate if, and where, and
how those flights can continue to occur, what sorts of
mitigations are appropriate to address those natural and
cultural resources, visitor experiences, and tribal concerns.
Mr. Case. And in a small number the draft ATMPs have in
fact recommended no air tour operations, correct?
Mr. Sauvajot. Yes, it is a small minority, but there are
instances where that has occurred, yes.
Mr. Case. OK. And, obviously, those reasons are spelled out
in those draft ATMPs and still open to public comment.
Mr. Sauvajot. Yes.
Mr. Case. OK, thank you.
I reserve the rest of my questions for my time.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from South
Dakota, Mr. Johnson, is recognized for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions
for this panel, but thank you.
Dr. Gosar. I will go down to Mr. Nehls.
Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I find it somewhat interesting. You talk about these ATMPs,
you mentioned some going back to 1997. We go into the year
2000. For 20 years nothing was done because, I think you said,
the National Park Service, they couldn't agree on anything. The
FAA, the National Park Service, there was a lot of conflict. Is
that why nothing was done?
Mr. Sauvajot. I guess I would characterize it as a lot of
work was done, but the challenge was to actually get plans
across the finish line, to complete the plans.
Mr. Nehls. But 20 years, I tell you, you are in the middle
of the swamp. Not a whole hell of a lot gets done up here,
either. And when we do make decisions up here, it seems to have
a negative impact on the American people that we serve. I find
that interesting.
So, tell me about this lawsuit here. It took a court of
appeals up in the DC swamp, the District of Columbia, to
actually start saying we need to enforce these things. I mean,
it has been 20 years. Nobody has done anything. It seems like
the FAA and the National Park Service came, and a court up in
DC is going to start saying you better start doing something
about these ATMPs.
Mr. Sauvajot. The court indicated that we needed to get
ATMPs completed where the law said that within a timeline----
Mr. Nehls. Right. In the District of Columbia, that affects
New Mexico? Hell, they have probably never even been to the
park. You are talking a few thousand miles away in this court
up here.
Who filed the lawsuit to actually get them to do something?
Mr. Sauvajot. There were two organizations that filed that
lawsuit.
Mr. Nehls. Who were they, do you know?
Mr. Sauvajot. Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility----
Mr. Nehls. Environmental responsibility. What is the other
one?
Mr. Sauvajot. The other is a Hawaiian organization.
Mr. Nehls. And what do they have to deal with? What are
they all about?
Mr. Sauvajot. There are concerns about overflights
impacting the significance of the areas.
Mr. Nehls. Yes, woodpeckers, bald eagles, the rat, maybe
even?
Mr. Sauvajot. I think largely cultural issues.
Mr. Nehls. Animals getting affected by this from all sorts
of places. I find it interesting.
In the statement from the Minority, Ms. Stansbury talked
about the economic impact. The economic impact shouldn't really
be involved here, this is more important, we can't talk about
the economic impact, and it shouldn't necessarily maybe
influence the implementation of these ATMPs. I am paraphrasing
here.
But how do you feel about the casinos? Could anybody tell
me, do we agree with casinos being placed in the Navajo Nation?
Does anybody talk about that economic impact? Nobody cares.
Nobody cares about putting a casino in Navajo Nation, do they?
They have four of them. How do you feel about that?
Mr. Sauvajot. I am actually not prepared to answer
questions on that.
Mr. Nehls. I bet you if somebody went up to you and said,
hey, should we put casinos in the Navajo Nation, and you said,
no, I don't think so because there is an economic impact, the
bright lights could affect the woodpecker at night time or
something like that, guess what is going to happen? The Navajo
Nation is going to say, please don't say that because we need
it.
This is about money. This is about the bottom line.
And when I get after this second panel with the Navajo
Nation, I am going to talk to him because in some of his
statements he said, well, I think we could kind of work this
out a little bit if you involve the Navajo Nation more
economically, and I think what they are trying to say is we
want a piece of the pie. Everybody should get a piece of the
pie so everybody gets a little sliver. Maybe it is because they
are not really getting a sliver of that pie. And if we gave
them some, maybe all this environmental stuff really won't
matter anymore. What do you think?
Mr. Sauvajot. I am focused on, and the National Park
Service, with the FAA are focused on where we can allow
overflights to occur in national parks in ways that ensure
protection of the natural and cultural resources, the visitor
experiences, and the concerns expressed by tribes about the
importance of those areas.
Mr. Nehls. We passed legislation. The House unanimously
passed my amendment on November 3, H.R. 4821, the Department of
the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, to prohibit funds made available to the National Park
Service to place any limitation on the number of air tours at
national parks. It is my hope that the Senate will do the same.
I think this is horrible, because I don't know how you are
going to move the veteran around. I only have 30 seconds left
here, so I don't know how you are going to move the disabled
veteran, and this and that. But this is disgusting, quite
honestly, that our veterans, and I wonder how the people with
disabilities are going to move around. How are you going to get
over the Grand Canyon and other places? I think it is shameful.
What about putting America first? The environmental whack
jobs have totally destroyed this country, and they don't have
to have an argument here. This is ridiculous.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
Hawaii, Mr. Case, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To my colleague just now, a
couple of quick points.
First of all, the lawsuit that was filed was filed in part
by a Hawaiian organization that was concerned about the
destruction of two of our national parks very heavily visited,
very heavily over-flighted at all hours under all conditions by
tour helicopter operators that had no concern whatsoever for
preserving the visitor experience. And they brought a very
simple lawsuit, which they are entitled to do, which is to
compel the enactment of a law that was intended 20 years ago
and is still intended to balance competing interests in a way
that will be fair and will be consistent with the organizing
principles of the national parks. So, that is No. 1.
No. 2, as to the amendment you just mentioned, I think it
is erroneous to characterize it as unanimously passing the
House of Representatives. What actually happened was it passed
on a voice vote over the negative recommendation of both the
Majority and Minority Members' Chairs of the relevant
subcommittee. And I think the only reason that it did get
included was because a roll call vote was not called. But that
is just my interpretation.
So, back to the hearing, to Mr. Sauvajot, a couple of
questions. First of all, when you look at the organic purposes
of our National Park Service, where does profit extraction rank
in the organic purposes? Is that something that we are supposed
to be doing as a primary purpose of our national parks?
Mr. Sauvajot. It is not included in our Organic Act. Our
Organic Act is very specific to the values for which the parks
were created, and ensuring that those values are perpetuated
for visitor enjoyment in perpetuity, ideally.
Mr. Case. OK. And, of course, this process that we are
going through is a process under which the National Park
Service has to work with the Federal Aviation Administration.
They are your co-partners, right?
Mr. Sauvajot. That is correct. The air tour management
planning process is statutorily required to involve both
agencies, the FAA and the NPS, in the development of Air Tour
Management Plans or voluntary agreements specifically for
evaluating if and where flights may occur over national parks
in order to ensure that natural and cultural resources are
protected, that visitor experiences are maintained, and that
the interests of tribes and their concerns, including Native
Hawaiian organizations, are part of that.
Mr. Case. OK, and I am going to just editorialize, so this
is a rhetorical question. But in general, I believe the
National Park Service has been focused on the protection of the
organic purposes in this process, and the FAA has been a little
bit more focused on maintaining the use of the national
airspace. So, you have had a negotiation of sorts with the FAA
throughout your process that has fully included the interests
of the tour operators. But I am not expecting you to answer
that.
There have been a couple of arguments cited already by my
Chair and otherwise implied in the testimony, and one of them
goes like this: We have to have tour operators to provide both
elderly and disabled folks enjoyment of our national parks. Do
you actually try to accommodate the interests of our elderly
and disabled folks in the administration of the national parks?
Mr. Sauvajot. Yes. The National Park Service is very
committed to ensuring full accessibility to programs, to
resources, to destinations in national parks. We spend a lot of
time and effort on providing accessibility. Air tours certainly
provide one way that people with disabilities or elderly people
can access parks, but there are many other ways that people can
enjoy resources in parks and----
Mr. Case. OK. And then another concern or another
observation is that, basically, noise and ground disruption
from air tour operations is no big deal to park visitors. Is
that reflected in your surveys of actual visitors to our
national parks? Is noise a concern? Is community disruption a
concern? Is the impact on the ambiance of and pristine nature
of our national parks of concern to visitors?
Mr. Sauvajot. It has been expressed as a concern by
visitors. And, certainly, across national parks the challenge
of how you visit parks and what you experience when you come to
parks can be affected by noise and those kinds of disruptions.
Those are exactly the kinds of things, though, that we try to
analyze in our efforts to, again, identify where and how air
tours may be appropriate.
But yes, we do, and have received concerns expressed. And
those concerns have also been expressed in the public comments
through the air tour planning process.
Mr. Case. OK, my time is up. Thank you very much.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. I will recognize myself
for my 5 minutes.
Currently, those tour operators pay about half of their
fees to the National Park Service, do they not?
Mr. Sauvajot. Fees, there are only three parks currently
where fees come to the National Park Service for air tours, and
there is a legislative stipulation about how those fees are
collected. But most parks, there are no fees.
Dr. Gosar. Well, you get to my point. What is the current
backlog of the deferred maintenance on the National Park
Service?
Mr. Sauvajot. That is a very good question. I do not have
that number here with me now. I could get that number for you.
Dr. Gosar. I am just going to go down this rabbit hole.
Tell me how that resource of the national parks is desecrated.
I am the guy who actually wrote that law, got that law
written in 2012 in regards to the noise abatement in the Grand
Canyon National Park. So, tell me about the quiet technology.
Does it not work?
Mr. Sauvajot. The air tour management planning process and
the plans themselves actually have stipulations that will allow
greater time periods for flights to occur with the use of quiet
technology. So, we recognize that quiet technology can be a
helpful and appropriate way to reduce impacts, and we have
included that in the planning for Air Tour Management Plans.
Dr. Gosar. One more question. I hear the restraint in my
colleague from Hawaii's voice. Isn't Hawaii a little bit
different than the other ones, the rest of the national parks?
Mr. Sauvajot. Actually, I would suggest that all the parks
have unique concerns, issues, and resources. There are a wide
variety of different kinds of national parks, which is why in
our----
Dr. Gosar. Well, I understand that. I understand the
uniqueness. But I mean, really, it is out there in the middle
of the ocean. It is very small islands, in comparison. So, I
mean it is kind of a little different. Maybe it could be very
similar to what we are looking at where we are seeing the
monuments in South Dakota and in the northern United States
being hit hard, would it not?
Mr. Sauvajot. Each of the plans reflects the concerns and
characteristics of the individual park units, the resource
values, the effects on those resource values, and the
perspectives that Native Hawaiian organizations or tribal
entities provide. And those are unique across each of the park
units.
Dr. Gosar. Got you. Let's go back. Has the National Park
Service established consistent outreach and consultation to the
National Parks Overflight Advisory Group regarding the
development of ATMPs since that last hearing?
Mr. Sauvajot. We have consulted with the National Park's
Overflights and Advisory Group on multiple times. We have been
working through them and with them through virtual meetings and
there have been two face-to-face meetings over the last couple
of years.
Dr. Gosar. And how well was that attended? And what kind of
notice did you give them?
Mr. Sauvajot. I believe those are attended by the full
membership of the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group.
Dr. Gosar. How much weight is given to Native Americans in
regards to that overflight passage?
Mr. Sauvajot. I guess I would not necessarily characterize
it as weight, as understanding the effects and the concerns
that are stipulated or expressed by Native organizations and
individuals about the significance and sacred qualities of
different areas, and how overflights may affect those.
Dr. Gosar. Yes. How much have states given perspective in
that?
I mean, Arizona has these 23 different national parks or
entities. How are states given that access?
Mr. Sauvajot. For all the ATMPs, public meetings, as well
as comment periods, conversations, and meetings have occurred
across and with stakeholders for every single one of the ATMPs,
which would include states, it would include other stakeholder
organizations as part of the process. And all of that input is
included in the decision process and the evaluations.
Dr. Gosar. So, when you look at these possible reductions,
how are they going to influence these gateway communities?
I mean, when somebody gets hurt down there, it is these
people that usually go in to get them. How does that affect
these gateway communities?
Mr. Sauvajot. The national parks, as you indicated, are
very important for local economies. And the air tour industry
is one component of that. There is certainly the potential for
effects on individual operators for some of the changes that
may occur in some of the plans.
However, the uses that aircraft still can maintain are not
precluded by an ATMP. So, things like emergency response,
search and rescue, things like that, resource inventories are
all uses that are certainly not precluded by an Air Tour
Management Plan.
Dr. Gosar. Last question. How does noise rank in your 1-to-
10 scale?
Mr. Sauvajot. Thank you for that question. That is a really
interesting question.
It really depends on the resource. Some things are much
more sensitive to noise. Other things are much less sensitive
to noise. So, I would say that, depending on the resource and
the place, it may be a very great concern because certain
species may be very sensitive to noise, certain places may be
very sensitive to noise. So, I would say that in some places it
is going to be a fairly high number, in other places it is
going to be a fairly low number. And the Air Tour Management
Plans reflect exactly that variation, because each park has a
unique plan and a unique set of stipulations about how they can
fly.
Dr. Gosar. I thank you very much for your indulgence with
the questions.
Seeing no more, we will dismiss you and get our second
panel started. Thank you.
Mr. Sauvajot. Thank you very much.
[Pause.]
Dr. Gosar. Welcome back, everybody. I will now introduce
the witnesses for our second panel.
First, we have Mr. John Wells, Chairman of the Military-
Veterans Advocacy Group. Good seeing you again.
Mr. Jake Tomlin, President of the Grand Canyon Scenic
Airlines. Good seeing you, Jake.
Mr. Carl Slater, a delegate for the Navajo Nation from the
Council. Good seeing you, Carl.
And Representative Johnson would like to take a chance to
introduce our next and final witness, Mr. Mark Schlaefli.
Mr. Johnson. Thanks for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
When people think of South Dakota, they often think of the
Federal lands like Mount Rushmore and Badlands, just really
incredible places. Every year millions of people spend billions
of dollars in South Dakota because of those Federal lands. And,
of course, they also make memories that last a lifetime.
And we have a great American success story in Mr.
Schlaefli, in that he has helped people make some of those
memories, 30 years of experience flying over the area. He moved
himself up from a line pilot, to a training coordinator, to
chief pilot, to director of operations, and he is now the
President of Rushmore Helicopters, Black Hills Aerial
Adventures, and Badger Helicopters.
And we are honored, South Dakota is honored to be able to
have him share his insight with us.
And thank you for the opportunity, sir.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
I now recognize Mr. John Wells for your 5 minutes. Thanks,
John.
STATEMENT OF JOHN WELLS, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, MILITARY-
VETERANS ADVOCACY, SLIDELL, LOUISIANA
Mr. Wells. Chairman Paul Gosar, Ranking Member Melanie
Stansbury, and other members of the Committee, thank you for
the opportunity to present Military-Veterans Advocacy's views
on the Air Tour Management System. I am accompanied by the MVA
Vice Chair, Sergeant Major Jim Kuiken USMC (retired). Sergeant
Major Kuiken is a combat Marine who proudly wears the purple
heart and who has fought for this nation in seven wars or
conflicts. He is totally and permanently disabled.
I wish Congressman Hunt was here so I could wish him a Go
Navy, Beat Army, but Mr. Chairman, please provide that message
to him, if you would.
We are here mostly to talk about disabled veterans.
Military-Veterans Advocacy, Inc., MVA, is a tax-exempt IRC
501(c)(3) organization based in Slidell, Louisiana that works
for the benefit of the armed forces and military veterans.
Through litigation, legislation, and education, MVA seeks to
obtain benefits for those who are serving or have served in the
military.
In support of this goal, MVA provides support for various
legislation on the state and Federal levels, as well as
engaging in targeted litigation to assist those who have
served. We currently have over 1,500 proud members, and our
volunteer board of directors litigates, legislates, and
educates in support of veterans. MVA analyzes and supports/
opposes legislation, assists congressional staffs with the
drafting of legislation, and initiates rulemaking requests to
the Department of Veterans Affairs.
MVA also files suits under the Administrative Procedures
Act to obtain judicial review of veterans' legislation and
regulations as well as amicus curiae briefs in the courts of
appeal and the Supreme Court of the United States. MVA is also
certified as a continuing legal education provider by the state
of Louisiana to train attorneys in veterans' law.
MVA is composed of six sections: Blue Water Navy, Agent
Orange Survivors of Guam, Veterans of Southeast Asia, Veterans
of the Panama Canal Zone, Veterans of Okinawa, and At-Risk
Veterans. We are a member of the TEAMS Coalition, the
Foundation Veteran Outreach Program, and the National Military
Veterans Alliance. MVA works closely with veterans service
organizations including the United States Submarine Veterans,
Inc., the National Association of Atomic Veterans, the
Association of the United States Navy, Veterans Warriors, and
other groups working to secure benefits for veterans.
MVA has not received any Federal grants or contracts, or
contracts, grants, or payments originating with a foreign
government during the past 36 months by the witness or by an
entity represented by the witness and related to the subject
matter of the hearing, and a disclosure of whether the witness
is a fiduciary (including, but not limited to, a director or
officer).
Military-Veterans Advocacy's Chairman, Commander John B.
Wells, USN (retired). MVA's chairman, Commander John B. Wells,
USN (retired) has long been viewed as a technical expert on
herbicide exposure. A 22-year veteran of the Navy, Commander
Wells served as a Surface Warfare Officer on six different
ships, with over 10 years at sea. He possessed a mechanical
engineering subspecialty, was qualified as a navigator for
command at sea, and served as the chief engineer on several
Navy ships.
Since retirement, Commander Wells has become a practicing
attorney with an emphasis on military and veterans law. He is
counsel on several pending cases concerning herbicide and other
toxic exposures. Commander
Wells was the attorney on the Procopio v. Wilkie case that
extended the presumption of herbicide exposure to the
territorial sea of the Republic of Vietnam, which laid the
groundwork for the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act. He has
initiated lawsuits on behalf of MVA to further extend the
presumption of exposure and authored or co-authored several
provisions of the PACT Act. He also initiated judicial review
of several provisions of the Appeals Modernization Act which
was decided favorably by the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit.
Since 2010, he has visited virtually every Congressional
and Senatorial office to discuss the importance of enacting
veterans' benefits legislation. With the onset of COVID,
Commander Wells has conducted virtual briefings for new Members
of Congress and their staffs.
The tragic epidemic of veteran suicide continues to grow.
Based on the latest study, almost 6,400 veterans per year die
by their own hand. This represents an increase of 114 over the
previous year. Congress has appropriated and the VA has spent
billions of dollars in an unsuccessful attempt to reverse this
horrific trend. MVA has introduced a program of nature therapy
to help arrest this heart-breaking trend.
Many of those veterans suffer from the terrible twin
scourges of post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury.
Often these veterans have also incurred physical disabilities.
Post-Traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury often act to
discourage veterans from overcoming their physical infirmities
and causing them to sink into the depths of despair. All too
often this hopelessness results in the veteran committing
suicide.
Studies have shown that nature has a calming effect on
those who suffer from this despondency. Enjoying the beauties
of nature, through our national parks provides the impetus to
enjoy life and continue to strive to overcome physical and
mental disabilities. The natural beauty of our Federal lands
helps to counteract the anguish and gloom while stimulating the
happiness that humans get from natural beauty. Studies also
show that people who are happy and enjoy the pleasures of life
do not kill themselves.
Military-Veterans Advocacy has joined with the Benjamin
Ware Legacy Fund, a Canadian charity promoting nature therapy
for mental health. Rather than providing specific therapy, the
program promotes a Get Outside Day to encourage participation
in outdoor activities. Scheduled for the second weekend in
June, the event embraces nature therapy through sponsorship of
the Get Outside Day to get people worldwide outside and
enjoying the natural benefits of Mother Nature.
Here in the United States, the concept of Veterans Get
Outside Day is to get folks, especially those suffering from
depression, anxiety, TBI, or PTS to walk, run, hike, bike,
ride, or simply to sit in a chair and soak in the sun. The goal
of the program is to encourage follow-on therapy available
through various non-profits who specialize in various
therapies, and we will make links available to different
outside activities. MVA and the o2 Project jointly sponsor the
10-a-Day Program to encourage veterans and others to spend 10
minutes a day with their favorite non-alcoholic beverage to
commune with nature.
The inaugural Veterans Get Outside Day was held in Baton
Rouge, Louisiana. The U.S. Senate recognized the benefits of
this day by unanimously adopting S. Res. 206, and requested the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to join with the Secretary of the
Interior and the Forest Service to jointly promote these
events. Unfortunately, a companion House Resolution, H. Res.
387, died in Committee. As a result, the VA refused to
participate. Still, hundreds of veterans and their families
participated in the event throughout the nation. A larger event
is planned for June 9, 2024 in Newport, Rhode Island.
The national parks represent an important part of nature
therapy for our veterans and other citizens. Veterans Get
Outside Day coincides with the National Park Service's Get
Outdoors Month of June 2024. Additionally, the Forest Service
sponsors the National Get Outdoors Day on the second Saturday
in June.
MVA supports the Forest Service and the Park Service
initiatives, and will promote them along with our own event.
But nature therapy cannot be limited to 1 day or 1 month. It
must be a year-around effort. While some efforts have been made
to improve access to national parks, it is still hard for a
disabled veteran to navigate many of the trails. Even those in
an electric scooter or chair find it difficult on many of the
trails. It is impossible for those with a manual wheelchair or
who suffer from lung issues due to burn pits and other toxic
exposure.
While many veterans are capable of enjoying the national
parks on foot, by bicycle, or even in a motor vehicle, physical
limitations make it impossible for those who are wheel-chair
bound, amputees, or those with vertigo and balance problems.
The obvious answer for those veterans is an air tour by
helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft. We do not feel that this is
the best approach, but currently it is the only one.
We urge the Subcommittee to consider other ground options
such as a tram for some of the areas that are difficult to
reach any other way. MVA believes that the national parks must
be an integral part of the nature therapy initiative.
A review of the 2020 annual Air Tour Report showed no
provision for disabled persons or disabled veterans, nor is
there any reporting provision for these groups. The ATMPs for
the Badlands, Great Smoky Mountains, Glacier, Mount Rushmore,
and many other parks do not address the needs of disabled
veterans. Provisions must be made for disabled veterans who are
wheel-chair bound. The tours must also make provisions for
service dogs. ATMPs must address these challenges.
MVA is concerned that any limitations on air access to the
national parks, including the exclusion of commercial air tour
companies, will negatively affect our nature therapy program.
It is our position that Congress should require all ATMPs to
address requirements to ensure air access by those persons with
physical and mental disabilities.
We further believe that the VA should be included in the
process of revising and formulating ATMPS and maintain
membership on the National Parks Overflight Advisory Group.
Veterans with post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain
injury are casualties of war. They may or may not qualify for
the Purple Heart, but they are still casualties and we should
treat them as such.
While safety concerns are paramount, and preservation of
natural sounds are important, Congress should move to expand
rather than limit airborne access to the national parks,
especially for our disabled veterans. Commercial air tours who
can provide for disabled veteran access must not be excluded.
MVA thanks the Committee for its interest in veterans and
MVA's nature therapy program. We hope that you will work with
us to further expand this program.
[Audio malfunction.]
Mr. Wells. I guess he says I am not talking loud enough.
How do we get a wheelchair on a helicopter? Can we do that?
Sure we can, but it has to be addressed. Our brothers at the
Paralyzed Veterans of America have come up with something
called Just Plane Wrong, plane spelled p-l-a-n-e. We need to
make these air transport management plans conducive to allowing
disabled veterans.
Service dogs. You have a 91 or 92 pound service dog. Do you
make any kind of accommodations for that? That 91, 92 pounds
has an effect on small planes. But in the Air Traffic
Management Plans they don't tell them we need to do that, but
we do.
Folks, 6,400 veterans killed themselves in the last known
report. That is 114 more than the previous year. The trajectory
is wrong. You all have spent billions of dollars trying to
address veteran suicide. Yet, right in front of us is a low-
cost, high-impact use by using the national parks. We asked and
submitted to the House a resolution to ask the Park Service,
the Forest Service, and the VA to work together to promote the
use of the national parks and other natural resources, state
parks, heck, go out, take a walk, ride a bike, do whatever you
want to do, and make yourself available of the healing effects
of nature. These Air Tour Management Plans do not address them.
Yes. Do we need a plan? Sure. But it should be something
that would solve the problem. No offense, folks, but sometimes
Congress isn't good at really solving the problem. So, let's
try to take a look at that, if we would.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Stansbury.
Mr. Case, I hope I didn't insult you. I really would like
to sit down and talk with you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wells follows:]
Prepared Statement of Commander John B. Wells, USN (Ret), Chairman,
Military-Veterans Advocacy
Introduction
Chairman Paul Gosar, Ranking Member Melanie Stansbury and other
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present
Military-Veterans Advocacy's views on the Air Tour Management System. I
am accompanied by the MVA Vice-Chair, Sgt. Major Jim Kuiken USMC (ret).
Sgt. Major Kuiken is a combat Marine who proudly wears the purple heart
and who has fought for this nation in seven wars or conflicts. He is
totally and permanently disabled.
About Military-Veterans Advocacy
Military-Veterans Advocacy Inc. (MVA) is a tax-exempt IRC 50l[c][3]
organization based in Slidell, Louisiana that works for the benefit of
the armed forces and military veterans. Through litigation,
legislation, and education, MVA seeks to obtain benefits for those who
are serving or have served in the military. In support of this goal,
MVA provides support for various legislation on the State and Federal
levels as well as engaging in targeted litigation to assist those who
have served. We currently have over 1500 proud members and our
volunteer board of directors litigates, legislates, and educates in
support of veterans. MVA analyzes and supports/opposes legislation,
assists Congressional staffs with the drafting of legislation and
initiates rulemaking requests to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
MVA also files suits under the Administrative Procedures Act to obtain
judicial review of veterans' legislation and regulations as well as
amicus curiae briefs in the Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court of
the United States. MVA is also certified as a Continuing Legal
Education provider by the State of Louisiana to train attorneys in
veterans' law.
MVA is composed of six sections: Blue Water Navy, Agent Orange
Survivors of Guam, Veterans of Southeast Asia, Veterans of the Panama
Canal Zone and Veterans of Okinawa and At-Risk Veterans. We are a
member of the TEAMS Coalition, the Foundation Veteran Outreach Program,
and the National Military Veterans Alliance. MVA works closely with
Veterans Service Organizations including the United States Submarine
Veterans, Inc., the National Association of Atomic Veterans, the
Association of the United States Navy, Veterans Warriors, and other
groups working to secure benefits for veterans.
MVA has not received any Federal grants or contracts, or contracts,
grants, or payments originating with a foreign government during the
past 36 months by the witness or by an entity represented by the
witness and related to the subject matter of the hearing, and a
disclosure of whether the witnesses is a 4 fiduciary (including, but
not limited to, a director or officer).
Military-Veterans Advocacy's Chairman, Commander John B. Wells USN
(Ret.)
MVA's Chairman, Commander John B. Wells, USN (Retired) has long
been viewed as a technical expert on herbicide exposure. A 22-year
veteran of the Navy, Commander Wells served as a Surface Warfare
Officer on six different ships, with over ten years at sea. He
possessed a mechanical engineering subspecialty, was qualified as a
Navigator and for command at sea and served as the Chief Engineer on
several Navy ships.
Since retirement, Commander Wells has become a practicing attorney
with an emphasis on military and veteran's law. He is counsel on
several pending cases concerning herbicide and other toxic exposures.
Commander Wells was the attorney on the Procopio v. Wilkie case that
extended the presumption of herbicide exposure to the territorial sea
of the Republic of Vietnam, which laid the groundwork for the Blue
Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act. He has initiated lawsuits on behalf of
MVA to further extend the presumption of exposure and authored or co-
authored several provisions of the PACT Act. He also initiated judicial
review of several provisions of the Appeals Modernization Act which was
decided favorably by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Since 2010 he has visited virtually every Congressional and Senatorial
office to discuss the importance of enacting veterans' benefits
legislation. With the onset of Covid, Commander Wells has conducted
virtual briefings for new Members of Congress and their staffs.
Nature Therapy and At-Risk Veterans
The tragic epidemic of Veteran Suicide continues to grow. Based on
the latest study, almost 6400 veterans per year die by their own hand.
This represents an increase of 114 over the previous year. Congress has
appropriated, and the VA has spent, billions of dollars in an
unsuccessful attempt to reverse this horrific trend. MVA has introduced
a program of nature therapy to help arrest this heart-breaking trend.
Many of those veterans suffer from the terrible twin scourges of
post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury. Often these veterans
also have incurred physical disabilities. Post-Traumatic stress and
traumatic brain injury often act to discourage veterans from overcoming
their physical infirmities and causing them to sink into the depths of
despair. All too often this hopelessness results in the veteran
committing suicide.
Studies have shown that nature has a calming effect on those who
suffer from this despondency. Enjoying the beauties of nature, through
our National Parks, provides the impetus to enjoy life and continue to
strive to overcome physical and mental disabilities. The natural beauty
of our federal lands helps to counteract the anguish and gloom while
stimulating the happiness that humans get from natural beauty. Studies
also show that people who are happy and enjoy the pleasures of life do
not kill themselves.
Military-Veterans Advocacy' has joined with the Benjamin
Ware Legacy Fund, a Canadian charity promoting nature therapy for
mental health. Rather than providing specific therapy, the program
promotes a ``Get Outside Day'' to encourage participation in outdoor
activities. Scheduled for the second weekend in June, the event
embraces ``nature therapy'' through sponsorship of the ``The o2
Project--Get Outside Day'' to get people, worldwide, outside and
enjoying the natural benefits of Mother Nature. Here in the United
States, the concept of ``Veterans Get Outside Day'' is to get folks
especially those suffering from depression, anxiety, TBI or PTS to
walk, run, hike, bike ride, or simply to sit in a chair and soak in the
sun. The goal of the program is to encourage follow-on therapy
available through various non-profits who specialize in various
therapies and we will make links available to different outside
activities. MVA and the o2 Project jointly sponsor the ``10-A-Day''
program to encourage veterans and others to spend 10-minutes a day with
their favorite non-alcoholic beverage to commune with nature.
The inaugural Veterans Get Outside Day was held in Baton Rouge
Louisiana. The U.S. Senate recognized the benefits of this day by
unanimously adopting S. Res 206 and requested the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to join with the Secretary of the Interior and the Forest
Service to jointly promote these events. Unfortunately, a companion
House Resolution, H. Res. 387, died in Committee. As a result, the VA
refused to participate. Still hundreds of veterans and their families
participated in the event throughout the nation. A larger event is
planned for June 9, 2024 in Newport, Rhode Island.
The National Parks represent an important part of nature therapy
for our veterans and other citizens. Veterans Get Outside Day coincides
with the National Park Service's ``Get Outdoors Month,'' of June 2024.
Additionally, the Forest Service sponsors the ``National Get Outdoors
Day'' on the second Saturday in June. MVA supports the Forest Service
and the Park Service initiatives and will promote them along with our
own event. But nature therapy cannot be limited to one day or one
month. It must be a year-around effort.
While some efforts have been made to improve access to national
parks, it is still hard for a disabled veteran to navigate many of the
trails. Even those in an electric scooter or chair find it difficult on
many of the trails. It is impossible for those with a manual wheelchair
or who suffer from lung issues due to burn pits and other toxic
exposure. While many veterans are capable of enjoying the National
Parks on foot, by bicycle, or even in a motor vehicle, physical
limitations make it impossible for those who are wheel-chair bound,
amputees or those with vertigo and balance problems. The obvious answer
for those veterans is an air tour by helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft.
We do not feel that this is the best approach, but currently it is the
only one. We urge the Subcommittee to consider other ground options
such as a tram for some of the areas that are difficult to reach any
other way. MVA believes that the National Parks must be an integral
part of the nature therapy initiative.
A review of the 2020 annual Air Tour report showed no provision for
disabled persons or disabled veterans. Nor is there any reporting
provision for these groups. The ATMPs for the Badlands, Great Smoky
Mountains, Glacier, Mount Rushmore and many other parks do not address
the needs of disabled veterans. Provisions must be made for disabled
veterans who are wheel-chair bound. The tours must also make provisions
for service dogs. ATMPs must address these challenges.
MVA is concerned that any limitations on air access to the National
Parks, including the exclusion of commercial air tour companies will
negatively affect our nature therapy program. It is our position that
Congress should require all ATMPs to address requirements to ensure air
access by those persons with physical and mental disabilities. We
further believe that the VA should be included in the process of
revising and formulating ATMPS and maintain membership on the National
Parks Overflight Advisory Group.
Veterans with post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury are
casualties of war. They may or may not qualify for the Purple Heart but
they are still casualties and we should treat them as such. While
safety concerns are paramount, and preservation of natural sounds are
important, Congress should move to expand rather than limit airborne
access to the National Parks--especially for our disabled veterans.
Commercial air tours who can provide for disabled veteran access must
not be excluded.
MVA thanks the Committee for its interest in veterans and MVA's
nature therapy program. We hope that you will work with us to further
expand this program/
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Wells, and now I recognize Mr.
Tomlin for his 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JAKE TOMLIN, PRESIDENT, GRAND CANYON SCENIC
AIRLINES, BOULDER CITY, NEVADA
Mr. Tomlin. Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury, and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for your leadership and
for holding this hearing today. I appreciate the opportunity to
provide this testimony.
I am the President of Papillon Helicopters and Grand Canyon
Scenic Airlines. I fly tours and charters, and have served 11
years as an F-18 pilot and officer in the United States Marine
Corps. And I am a third-generation graduate of the United
States Naval Academy. So, Go Navy, Beat Army.
Our company's history is the reason for our commitment and
passion for air tours. Considered the founder of helicopter air
tours, my wife's grandfather, Elling Halvorson, started
Papillon in 1965. We are the longest-running family owned and
operated combined aviation tour companies in the world, and we
served over 600,000 passengers annually prior to the pandemic.
Our company has a fleet of 64 helicopters and fixed wing
aircraft. We employ over 400 employees. This year we will fly
an estimated just over 300,000 passengers to such places as
Hoover Dam, Lake Mead, Monument Valley, Lake Powell, and, of
course, the unforgettable views of Grand Canyon's multiple
rims.
Our ability to share the beauty of the parks is under
serious threat due to the ATMP processes that have been forced
on us. We are strongly opposed to these damaging impacts of
these ATMPs.
Process concerns. Congress created the National Park
Overflight Advisory Group (NPOAG) to provide expert advice to
the FAA and National Park Service to develop ATMPs. However,
agencies excluded NPOAG, creating serious safety shortcomings
and concerns for transparency. In developing the ATMPs, the
agencies should consider all aviation noise in the process.
For instance, the Death Valley National Park ATMP cuts
flights to two annual flights. That is a 96 percent reduction.
Yet, there are two airports, three military operating areas in
the park where the aircraft operate at 200 feet AGL from 6 a.m.
to 10 p.m. Monday through Friday. With all this activity, it is
unclear why the agencies decided only two air tour flights were
an acceptable amount.
Economic considerations. The agencies used data from 2017
through 2019 to establish new Interim Operating Authority, IOA,
but did not take into consideration shifting market trends. By
placing an artificial cap over an arbitrary time frame, the
agencies only measured what was popular during that time. It is
clear from the ATMPs already introduced that the overall
strategy is to cut back flights to such a degree that it is no
longer economically feasible for air tour companies like mine
to stay in business around those parks.
Public service work. Our company started as a utility
company serving the public, and those roots remain as we
conduct missions from search and rescue, air cargo, and
firefighting. Removing or eliminating IOA reduces or completely
removes the presence of our industry in a community, reducing
our ability to provide those critical public services.
Safety consideration. These ATMPs contain many safety
concerns such as specific routes with no flexibility for
deviation in case of adverse weather; requiring the use of
different frequencies, rather than using airport common traffic
frequencies within 2 miles of the park; stacking fixed wing and
rotary wing at the same elevation and almost identical routes
and altitudes at high-density altitudes. This is a tremendous
safety concern, as aircraft climb and descend through each
other's path. The initial draft ATMPs demonstrated a lack of
consideration for very basic aviation safety factors.
Environmental considerations. I do not believe the agencies
have given adequate consideration to the environmental benefits
of air tours. In many of our parks, nearly every viewpoint is
within a short walking distance of fully developed parking lots
full of trucks, motorcycles, motor homes, and tour buses. The
decision to limit or eliminate air tours while allowing a
steady stream of loud vehicles to drive through the length of
the park seems pretty arbitrary. Through efforts such as carbon
offsets and strict altitude requirements, operators ensure they
are responsible stewards of the resource. There are currently
no restrictions or mitigation efforts for loud vehicles
operating in the park.
Access concerns. The national parks should be available for
all visitors to see. Limiting flights is discriminating to the
elderly, very young, handicapped, and others who might not have
the time, resources, or physical ability to see the park in any
other way. Papillon and GCSA has a proud history of serving
physically disabled passengers from our inception. This
includes flying two of our own family members who battled
Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy their entire lives. Without the
ability to fly them over the parks, they would not have
experienced it in the way that we can offer.
In conclusion, it is essential to preserve the national
parks, yet still enable visitations for all to enjoy. While I
oppose the ATMP processes that have been dealt on us,
commercial air tour operators welcome a truly collaborative
engagement with the FAA, NPS, and all interested parties to
benefit these parks and visitors. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tomlin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jake Tomlin, President, Papillon Grand Canyon
Helicopters & Grand Canyon Scenic Airlines
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on these Air
Tour Management Plans (ATMP).
I am the President of Papillon Grand Canyon Helicopters and Grand
Canyon Scenic Airlines (GCSA). Additionally, I have flown tours and
charters in the National Parks as a captain in the DHC-6 300 Twin
Otter. I have over 20 years of experience in professional aviation for
both the Department of Defense and commercial air tour industry. Prior
to joining our family of companies, I served 11 years as an F/A-18
pilot and officer in the United States Marine Corps after becoming a
3rd generation graduate from the United States Naval Academy.
It is important to know our company's history to understand our
commitment and passion for bringing the natural wonders and beauty of
the land we live into the public through air tours. I am a proud
employee of Papillon, a company my wife's grandfather started back in
1965. I am also an employee of Grand Canyon Scenic Airlines founded in
1927, together, the brands are the longest-running family owned and
operated aviation tour companies in the world. These tourism companies
served over 600,000 passengers annually prior to the COVID-19 shutdown
of our industry. Our family and our companies have been considered
pioneers in both starting aviation tourism in 1927 and founding
helicopter air tours in 1965.
The story of Papillon Grand Canyon Helicopters began in 1965,
thanks to the vision of my wife's grandfather, Elling Halvorson. At
that time, Elling owned a construction company specializing in remote
areas, high risk projects with challenging logistics. Elling took pride
in mitigating risks through creativity and innovation. He was in the
midst of a project to construct a microwave tower for AT&T atop the
9,400-foot Echo Summit in the Sierra Nevada Mountains when Elling
purchased his first helicopter, a Bell 47-G3B1. This helicopter was
used to carry workers and light construction materials more efficiently
through the treacherous mountain terrain than the 1.5-mile tramway he
had previously built.
The project that changed the course of Elling's career involved
constructing a 13.5-mile-long water pipeline from the North Rim to the
South Rim of the rugged Grand Canyon. At that time, it was the largest
contract the National Park Service had ever awarded. Today, this
project remains the largest helicopter-supported construction project
ever completed in the United States with more than 25,000 flight hours.
As Elling and his team flew colleagues and clients to work sites within
the canyon, the majestic scenery was so captivating that workers began
requesting chartered helicopter flights during off hours. Elling
recognized the golden opportunity that lay in front of him, and the
company was born that would make history by becoming one of the first
helicopter aerial sightseeing companies in the world and the first to
fly the Grand Canyon.
Shortly after forming the company in 1965, Elling acquired a fixed-
wing company, Grand Canyon Airlines, which would later become Grand
Canyon Scenic Airlines. Elling was also a pioneer in developing quiet
technology for the helicopter industry. He built the S55QT helicopter,
the first Quiet Technology helicopter in operation. His innovation
challenged the leading helicopter manufacturers to address the need for
quiet aircraft. It was his vision that led to the building of the
company' renowned state-of-the-art helicopter terminals and facilities
located at Grand Canyon National Park Airport and later at the Las
Vegas/Boulder City Municipal Airport.
Our company has a fleet of 64 helicopters and fixed wing aircraft.
We currently employ over 400 employees. As we continue our recovery
from the COVID impact we will fly an estimated 300,000 passengers this
year on daily tours to such places as Hoover Dam, Lake Mead, Monument
Valley, Lake Powell, and of course unforgettable views of the Grand
Canyon's multiple rims.
We have passenger terminals in Las Vegas, Boulder City, Grand
Canyon National Park, Grand Canyon West, and Page.
Our company is proud of the beautiful environments in which we live
and is blessed with the opportunity to share this beauty with our
visitors from around the world. However, this ability to share the
beauty of the national parks with others is under serious threat due to
ATMPs. We are strongly opposed to the damaging impacts of the ATMPs,
which damages extend beyond our company, but to our local communities
and the public wishing to visit the national parks.
ATMP Background
Congress passed the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000
(NPATMA) to regulate commercial air tour operations over the National
Park System. The Act required the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
and the National Park Service (NPS) to develop ATMPs for the national
parks. As part of the Act, Congress created the National Parks
Overflight Advisory Group (NPOAG) to provide expert advice and
recommendations to the agencies in the implementation of the NPATMA
with respect to commercial air tour operations over and near national
parks. The NPOAG is comprised of ten members from diverse backgrounds,
including representatives of general aviation, commercial air tour
operators, environmental concerns, and Native tribes.
However, 20 years later after no plans were developed, on May 1,
2020, the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered the FAA and
the NPS to file a proposed plan within 120 days for bringing all
twenty-three eligible parks into compliance with NPATMA within two
years and submit quarterly updates on the agencies' progress.
On August 31, 2020, the FAA and the NPS submitted the proposed
plans to the Court. The plan outlines the approach and steps the
agencies will take to meet the Court order and comply with the NPATMA.
Throughout the plan, the actions reflect coordination of government-to-
governmental Tribal consultation and other interagency coordination but
excludes NPOAG.
Process Concerns
The agencies' plan to meet the Court order makes no mention of the
NPOAG role. NPOAG was established in NPATMA to provide advice and
counsel with respect to commercial air tour operations over and near
national parks. The FAA's proposed schedule to accomplish the plan,
with its heavy focus on interagency coordination while omitting the
inclusion of NPOAG, creates a concern regarding transparency for the
overall process.
While it is the Court that imposed the arbitrary two-year deadline
on the FAA, the agency cannot sacrifice its first priority of
maintaining safety in the National Airspace (NAS). Rushing to complete
the project, without input on safety considerations from NPOAG, has
already produced shortcomings that will have a negative impact on the
NAS. While the proposed plan allows for notice and comment, not using
the NPOAG to help develop the best framework possible for the plan is
extraordinarily problematic.
The NPS has also chosen to exclude important input and involvement
from commercial air tour operators who will be directly affected by any
newly enforced Air Tour Management Plan. Local operators understand the
economics and safety of their operations better than anyone. They are
truly the experts in the field. The decision to exclude them from the
ATMP process clearly will put the general public and their businesses
at risk.
Congress set its vision and intent for air tours over the nation's
park by enacting NPATMA. This legislation was a product of the
consensus work and recommendations made by the National Parks
Overflights Working Group. Congress and stakeholders, working together,
created the roadmap for the development of ATMPs, which is now being
ignored in the rush to complete all the plans within two years.
In developing the ATMPs the agencies should look at all aviation
noise, not just air tour noise when determining the impact on the park
or recreation area. To date no noise studies have been completed on any
of the parks under consideration for an ATMP. The agencies should not
be singling out air tours but should look to the precedent set in Grand
Canyon to consider all aviation noise. Noise precedent was set
regarding over flights of National Parks when working through the Grand
Canyon National Park over flights issue, United States Air Tour
Association v. FAA, 298 F. 3d997 (D.C. Cir 2002). The results of this
litigation required the NPS and FAA to consider all aviation noise in
that process.
To provide a specific example on one ATMP and the impacts on the
industry, IOA was cut by 96% reducing flights from 54 to 2 annually in
Death Valley National Park. Yet there are three Military Operations
Areas (MOA) that overlie the Park. Military aircraft can operate at 200
feet Above Ground Level (AGL) from 6:00 am until 10:00 pm Monday
through Friday. There are also several low-level military training
routes inside the park as well as two other airports. Papillon is left
wondering what adverse conditions the agencies determined and
documented that lead them to believe 54 annual air tour flights at
Death Valley adversely affected the park, but 2 flights annually were
acceptable. Additionally, Bryce Canyon flights were reduced by 82%.
Grand Canyon Scenic Airlines alone lost 98% of our IOA reduced from
1305 to just 38 IOA Annually.
Economic Consideration
Given the economic impact on commercial air tour operators, neither
the NPS nor FAA has sufficiently established the economic loss to
commercial air tour operators and the communities in which they
operate. The National Park Service has also failed to reach out to the
operators to enquire what economic impacts might arise implementing a
management plan that restricts overflights. Operators are just now
recovering from the economic devastation of COVID-19, losing over 80%
of their business due to the shutdown of international travel. Further
restrictions will cripple an already fragile industry trying to
rebuild.
The FAA and the NPS have produced ATMPs that reduce or in some
parks completely eliminate interim operating authority (IOA). The IOA
is a flight cap that the operator can fly in a year and does not
specify the routes or operating conditions. When the flights are
completely eliminated the air tour operator is obviously forced out of
business and the public is deprived of the ability to see the park from
the air.
When IOA is reduced, both the air tour operators and the public are
negatively affected. With the reduction in the number of air tours that
can be flown, due to simple supply and demand, consumer prices will
rise significantly. The average visitor may no longer be able to afford
the price of a flight. Additionally, the ATMPs in some cases reduce the
IOA to such a degree that it does not allow for a profitable business
nor provide for the realistic prospect of becoming profitable if demand
for air tours increases.
The ATMPs also increase the cost of doing business. The ATMP
requires air tour operators to install expensive satellite tracking
devices and then pay for expensive plans that report every 15 seconds.
Our company does track our aircraft but with our equipment we do not
have the ability to produce the reports required. Identifying and
creating an accurate report would require someone to manually review
and tag each flight. Considering the number of daily flights over each
park that Papillon and GCSA operate would be a substantial time
commitment. Upgrading the tracking equipment is a very expensive
project and we feel does not meet any cost benefit analysis. The ATMPs
fail to take advantage of technology that would reduce costs. Automatic
Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) is an advanced surveillance
technology that combines an aircraft's positioning source, aircraft
avionics, and a ground infrastructure to create an accurate
surveillance interface between aircraft and Air Traffic Control (ATC).
ADS-B is becoming standard equipment in all aircraft and utilizing this
technology accomplishes the same goal as satellite type tracking
systems without the high cost. Where there are gaps in ADS-B coverage,
the agencies can expedite installation of ADS-B transceivers. Doing so
would enhance safety of flight for all aircraft, not just air tours.
While this was a recommendation by the NPOAG, the agencies have instead
opted for a more expensive tracking system.
The ATMP requires operators to submit detailed satellite tracking
data to the agencies. This is a remarkably burdensome and costly
requirement on a per flight basis considering the limited number of
allocations permitted. If the agencies instead required newer
technology ADS-B as a tracking requirement, they could view all air
tour aircraft flight live or recorded. The agencies would not need to
wait as much as seven months before seeing detailed routes of all
aircraft overflights.
In creating the ATMPs, the agencies modeled air tour flight data
from 2017 through 2019 to establish the new IOA amounts. The original
IOA issued was based on the number of flights flown when NPATMA was
established. By looking only at flights from 2017 to 2019, the agencies
are not taking into consideration market trends. Our company offers
flights to many different destinations. The popularity of those
destinations shifts over the years due to trends and other consumer
demands. By placing an artificial cap over an arbitrary timeframe, the
agencies only measured what was popular during that time period. This
shortsighted approach does not allow businesses the ability to shift
their services to meet changing consumer needs and interests.
The NPS is rushing through this process due to an unrealistic
timeline placed on them by the court. Without current modeling to see
how the resource is truly impacted we do not know if further
restrictions are needed. The NPS is overreaching and in doing so will
cripple the air tour industry and compromise air safety.
It is clear from the plans already introduced that the overall
strategy is to cut back flights to such a degree that it is no longer
economically feasible for air tour companies to stay in business.
Public Service Work
As noted in the history of our companies, we started as a utility
company building public service infrastructure. Those roots remain to
this day as we conduct various utility missions to include National
Park search and rescue at Grand Canyon and Sequoia Kings National
Parks, UPS air cargo, USFS and DOI firefighting nationwide, powerline
patrol, Department of Defense, Arizona and New Mexico Game & Fish and
many other operations. These types of missions serving the public good
are important to highlight. Our ability to meet these service needs in
our country would not be possible if it weren't for a strong air
tourism backbone in our businesses. Aviation can be a financially
difficult industry and having multiple revenue streams provides
important insurance for business continuity.
ATMPs do not only impact air tours, but they also impact the entire
line of our business. Removing or eliminating IOA for air tours reduces
or completely removes the presence of our industry in a community. This
in turn reduces the ability of our industry to provide public service
missions and other critical services.
Safety Considerations
The agencies have produced ATMPs with many safety of flight
concerns. Excluding critical stakeholders like the NPOAG in this
process resulted in plans for the initial parks that contain clear
safety concerns. Some examples of these safety concerns are:
Flight altitudes on tour routes that conflict with
arriving and departing aircraft from nearby airports.
Specific routes with no flexibility for deviation in case
of weather.
Communication requirements on a frequency that is the same
as some nearby airports causing congestion.
Required reporting phraseology not meaningful to the
majority of aircraft in the area.
The required communication frequency not approved by the
FCC for this purpose.
Arches National Park--despite being less than 2 miles away
from the Canyonlands Regional Airport, the plan requires
the use of a different frequency than the common traffic
advisory frequency.
Bryce Canyon National Park--the plan calls out specific
routes, altitudes and time of day that pose hazards to
helicopter operators. This includes stacking fixed wing and
rotary wing at the same elevation in almost identical
routes at high density altitudes. This causes a tremendous
safety concern as fixed wing and rotor wing climb and
descend through each other's path.
The initial draft ATMPs demonstrated a lack of consideration for
very basic aeronautical safety factors.
Environmental Considerations
I do not believe the agencies have given adequate consideration to
the environmental benefits of air tours. By reducing or eliminating air
tours the agencies have short sightedly ignored and blocked the
opportunities that exciting new technologies, promising quieter
flights, such as electrical aircraft, can deliver. By removing airspace
access for today's aircraft, the FAA and NPS are removing airspace
access for future generations using quieter technologies.
In the ATMPs the NPS and FAA focused on air tours, while ignoring
general vehicle traffic and the other environmental impacts from ground
visitors. In many of our national parks, nearly every viewpoint in the
park is within a short walking distance of fully developed parking lots
full of trucks, motorcycles, motorhomes, tour busses, and shuttle
busses. The decision to limit or eliminate air tours while allowing a
steady stream of loud vehicles to drive the length of the park, seems
arbitrary.
Air tours require no ground-based infrastructure at the park, which
allows visitors accessibility without the need for roads, trails,
signs, bathrooms, garbage cans, or other services.
By further restricting an already limited number of allowable air
tours, we are reducing opportunities to access our parks in a way that
leaves no environmental footprint with little to no disturbance.
Through carbon-offset efforts and strict altitude requirements to
control noise--just to name a few efforts--air tour operators are
working to ensure they are responsible stewards of the nation's parks.
There are currently no restrictions or mitigation efforts for loud
vehicles operating in the park, some of which make more noise than a
passing helicopter.
Access Concerns
While the ATMPs do real economic harm to the operators, it is
discriminatory against visitors who choose to experience the National
Parks by aerial sightseeing.
Air tours are an important option for many visitors conducting a
once-in-a-lifetime trip to see famous natural landmarks. Visitors
taking advantage of air tours benefit by avoiding traffic, wait times,
and walking trails that are inaccessible for people with disabilities
or elderly, while reducing congestion and demand on park
infrastructure.
The National Parks should be available for all visitors to see.
Limiting flights over the park unfairly limits the elderly, very young,
handicapped, and others to experience the park. Limiting flights over
the Parks is discriminating to those who might not have the time,
resources, or physical ability to see the park any other way.
Like ground-based tours, air tours are a valid part of our visitor
experience, providing a unique window from which we can share our
cultural, historical and environmental sites with the world. Air tours
require no ground-based infrastructure at the park, which allows
visitors accessibility without the need for roads, trails, signs,
bathrooms, garbage cans, or other services.
Papillon and GCSA has had a proud history of serving physically
disabled passengers. This included flying two of our own family members
who had to battle with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy their entire lives.
Without the ability to fly them over the parks they would not have been
able to experience it the way any of us could here today.
Conclusion
Undoubtedly it is essential to preserve the National Parks, yet
still enable visitations for all to enjoy. While I oppose the draft and
issued ATMPs, commercial air tour operators would welcome a
collaborative engagement with the FAA, NPS, and all interested parties
to benefit these parks and the visitors.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Tomlin, President, Grand
Canyon Scenic Airlines
Questions Submitted by Representative Case
Question 1. Please provide specific number of elderly (age 65+)
individuals, individuals with disabilities and youth who have received
tours over national park units from your business over the last 5
years.
Answer.
Age 65+ By Year
2023: 9,330
2022: 9,135
2021: 1,447
2020: 1,876
2019: 19,767
2023: Passengers With Limited Mobility
Children: 16,566
+ Lap Children: 273
Disability Noted: 262
Requires Cane/Stool: 121
Likely BMI greater than 40: 1,345
2022: Passengers With Limited Mobility
Children: 19,027
+ Lap Children: 275
Disability Noted: 270
Requires Cane/Stool: 99
Likely BMI greater than 40: 1,569
2021: Passengers With Limited Mobility
Children: 15,038
+ Lap Children: 388
Disability Noted: 171
Requires Cane/Stool: 127
Likely BMI greater than 40: 1,523
2020: Passengers With Limited Mobility
Children: 6,500
+ Lap Children: 179
Disability Noted: 100
Requires Cane/Stool: 44
Likely BMI greater than 40: 699
2019: Passengers With Limited Mobility
Children: 25,691
+ Lap Children: 328
Disability Noted: 379
Requires Cane/Stool: 68
Likely BMI greater than 40: 1,092
Question 2. What are your company's formal policies and procedures
to provide reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities
seeking air tours? Has your company ever been unable to provide
accommodations to allow an individual with a disability to fly with
your business?
Answer. Our company's formal policies are approved by the FAA and
implemented in our certificates general operations manual (GOM). I have
included Grand Canyon Scenic Airlines' procedures from our manual to
provide an example.
Both of our companies (Papillon and GCSA) have never denied
boarding to anyone who has met the FAA requirements to travel by
commercial air.
Question 3. Are there uniform standards across the air tour
industry to provide accessibility or are decisions left to individual
operators?
Answer. All operators must work with their local Flight Standards
District Office for their type of equipment and operating environments
to ensure safe boarding, transport and unloading of all passengers.
These will vary from company to company based on these variances.
Question 4. Please provide specific number of flights your business
has conducted over each individual national park unit, including
whether those flights are subject to the Grand Canyon ATMP Process,
would be subject to an ATMP developed or in development under the
National Park Air Tour Management Act or are not subject to any ATMP.
Answer. All flights are reported to the FAA that occur over the
National Parks we fly in. Below is a table of the parks our companies
have flown in over the past 5 years that are subject to these new ATMP
processes. These reports are from 2017-2019. Any other National Park
flights occured over the Grand Canyon National Park which is subject to
the preexisting GCNP ATMP.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4286.003
.epsQuestion 5. What is the average cost for an individual air tour
over a national park unit at your business?
Answer. We have products that range from $100-$600+. Rates change
daily and by season. For the most up to date pricing please go to:
papillon.com and scenic.com
Rates include fees to tribal partners such as the Hualapai and
Navajo who receive flat rates for tours or a percentage of ticket sales
or both. These fees may also include overflight payments to National
Parks which require an overflight fee.
Question 6. Who manufactured each of the helicopters in your fleet?
Do any of your helicopters currently utilize quiet technologies?
Answer. Airbus, Bell and MD helicopters are our helicopter
manufacturers. We have 28 x EC-130 helicopters that all meet Quiet
Technology Standards as well as 1 x MD-900 helicopter we use for NPS
search and rescue missions.
Question 7. Did your company provide comments to any ATMPs during
their public comment period? Did you company provide any input through
a trade organization? Did your company attempt to provide any
additional input to the agencies outside the public comment
opportunities? If so, please describe that input.
Answer. Both of our companies have had representation on NPOAG.
However, the NPOAG was not involved in helping craft the ATMPs. The
NPOAG was only briefed on the plans at the same time the information
went to the public at large. The information we could have provided in
the drafting process to avoid creating these safety hazards the
agencies created, was never provided. We did provide comments through
the public comment period in the Federal Register.
Question 8. Do you or any individuals from your company participate
in the National Park Overflights Advisory Group?
Answer. Since the inception of NPOAG we have always had a sitting
board member representing our companies. Prior members of this group
have included our founder Elling Halvorson and former president of the
Regional Airline Association and VP at Papillon, Alan Stephen.
Currently Papillon's COO, John Becker is our sitting member and I am
his alternate.
Question 9. Please list any specific safety concerns you or your
company have with individual ATMPs. How would you recommend that the
agencies address those concerns while maintaining the level of resource
protection described in the plan?
Answer. The National Park Service has excluded both NPOAG, The
Operators and the Local Flight Standards District Office on all
completed ATMP's. For example, in the Case of Bryce Canyon the draft
ATMP had operators flying at altitudes that would require pilots to be
on oxygen to fly the tour routes, additionally the NPS had the
operators on a different frequency than general aviation transitioning
through the area and entering the traffic pattern for the Bryce Canyon
Airport.
The Final ATMP still has safety issues with the route structure for
tours in Bryce Canyon. Tour helicopters and airplanes are in
conflicting traffic on the route, Helicopters and Fixed wing tour
aircraft must climb and descend through each other's traffic.
Additionally tour aircraft will also have to climb and descend through
general aviation traffic flying at lower altitudes.
Climb performance differs between aircraft types (Helicopters,
Turbine Fixed Wing Aircraft and Reciprocating Fixed wing Aircraft)
creating a safety of flight and these further impacts safety because
visibility between high wing and low wing airplanes as well as
helicopters is limited.
ATMPs only impact commercial air tour operators. The ATMPs do not
deal with potentially other low altitude aircraft that are not
commercial air tour operators. On any given day there are 10-20 private
aircraft that leave Bryce Canyon Airport and fly over the Amphitheatre
and do a scenic flight over the park.
Our airport is a high-density altitude airport, which means that an
aircraft's performance is impacted by the altitude. Air density is
determined by pressure, temperature, and humidity. To provide better
performance for our aircraft, commercial flights are operated in the
morning, when conditions provide greater performance capabilities. The
ATMP sets a starting time that begins after our commercial flights are
usually concluded.
Question 10. What are the environmental benefits of air tours? Have
these benefits been validated by peer-reviewed scientific study?
Answer. Air tours provide no physical impact on the National Parks
or their resources. They leave no garbage or footsteps behind. There is
no congestion on the roads that access the parks nor inside the park
boundaries. Air tours create a temporary noise signature that
completely restores the park back to its original state of natural
quiet once they are completed. Tours that utilize quiet technology (QT)
meet an even quieter threshold and leave a smaller temporary sound
impact. These tours utilizing QT have been evaluated by the Volpe
Institute.
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Tomlin. I now recognize Mr.
Slater for his 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CARL SLATER, DELEGATE, NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL,
WINDOW ROCK, ARIZONA
Mr. Slater. [Speaking Native language.] Chairman Gosar,
Ranking Member Stansbury, and members of the Subcommittee, I
come before you today as an elected member of the 25th Navajo
Nation Council, representing the communities of Tsaile/
Wheatfields, Black Rock, Lukachukai, Round Rock, Tsech'izhi,
and Rock Point. I previously served as the Navajo Nation's
airports manager, and I currently represent Native American
interests on the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group.
I thank you for this opportunity to address the impact of
the National Parks Air Tour Management Program on the Navajo
Nation.
I would like to begin my testimony by outlining some of the
risks air tours pose to the Navajo people. One of our primary
concerns is the potential invasion of privacy from air tours,
especially for families living near tour sites that are located
inside of national parks. No one likes to think that they are
being watched by voyeurs in the sky, but that has frequently
been our experience. Less than a decade ago, a helicopter tour
in Canyon de Chelly spotted an ongoing ceremony and hovered
overhead, desecrating the sacred ceremonial space.
Though rotary wing air overflights are infrequent, there
have been dozens of reported low flying, fixed wing aircraft
over the last few years that have frightened and scattered our
flocks and herds and interrupted our people in some of their
most private and sacred moments.
In addition to privacy concerns, our people are also
worried about potential damage to cultural sites. In 1966, a
military flight emitted a sonic boom over Canyon del Muerto,
which is inside Canyon de Chelly National Monument. That caused
a large portion of overhanging cliff to fall, damaging a cliff
dwelling below. Though not as intense as some of the military
flights, air tours have the potential to cause similar damage
because of how low and close to the sites they fly.
Like all lands in this country, national parks are Native
lands, and full of sacred sites like White House Ruins, Spider
Rock, and Canyon de Chelly. These sites are our relatives, and
as important to us as any church, synagogue, or temple to the
outside world. They are irreplaceable, and any damage done
would be devastating.
Finally, air tours also pose a potential environmental
risk. Commercial air tours generate a significant amount of
emissions, not only contributing to climate change but also
affecting local air quality. Noise from low-flying aircraft,
especially at certain times of the year, can also disrupt
wildlife, and has been shown to interfere with the successful
nesting of young raptors, especially golden eagles, as well as
large game animals such as bighorn sheep on Navajo. Just like
our livestock, these animals sustain us both physically and
spiritually, and the successful perpetuation of their
populations is critical for the continued well-being of our
people.
Despite the risks associated with air tourism, it can be
done in a safe and responsible manner. But this requires tribal
consultation. Local tribal citizens are best equipped to know
the risks associated with air tours, and the Federal Government
has an obligation to ensure tribes are consulted at every level
of tribal government to ensure their perspectives and concerns
are incorporated into those plans.
But for consultation to be meaningful, the Federal
Government needs to meet tribes at their level of capacity and
engagement, ensuring that tribes have adequate scientific and
technical resources. Let tribes set the pace of the
consultation process. Do not rush things to accommodate the
preferred pace of environmental groups or industry.
Additionally, if you want to win over tribal support for
air tours in and around tribal lands, ensure tribes participate
in the economic benefits. Currently, there is almost no
economic benefit to the Navajo people from air tourism, despite
the hundreds of millions of dollars generated by this industry
adjacent to the Navajo Nation. When tourists visit the Navajo
Nation on the ground, they spend money at the local businesses
purchasing jewelry or food from food stands. But air tours
typically launch out of Las Vegas or Flagstaff, which is where
all the employment and tax revenues accrue.
To help tribes realize some of the benefits of air tours, I
have a few suggestions: existing tour companies should be
required to hire local Native guides; Air Tour Management Plans
should include incentives for existing tour operators to mentor
Native entrepreneurs; a certain percentage of available flights
should be reserved for Native-owned businesses; tour companies
operating in tribal airspace and tribal land should be required
to pay tribal taxes; and finally, tour companies need to
coordinate their services with on-the-ground operators so
visitors know how they may obtain culturally appropriate
information.
In summary, while air tours provide visitors with an
exciting opportunity to see our national parks and monuments
from a new perspective, these opportunities are not without
risks, and those risks fall disproportionately on Native
peoples. The only just way to proceed is to ensure tribes help
shape the Air Tour Management Plans and reap an economic return
from these tours.
I would like to once again extend my gratitude to this
Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify.
[Speaking Native language.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Slater follows:]
Prepared Statement of Carl Slater, Delegate to the 25th Navajo
Nation Council
Ya'at'eeh Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury, and Members of
the Subcommittee:
My name is Carl Slater. I am a member of the 25th Navajo Nation
Council, representing the communities of Tsaile/Wheatfields,
Lukachukai, Round Rock, Tsech'izhi, and Rock Point. I am also the Vice
Chair of the Budget and Finance Committee.
The Navajo Nation (``Nation'') is one of the largest Native
American Tribes in the country with a population of over 400,000
members, half of whom reside on the Navajo reservation encompassing
over 27,000 square miles and spanning over 11 counties in three
states--Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah.
As an elected leader of the Navajo people, I am honored to testify
before this subcommittee on the National Parks Air Tour Management
Program.
Background
The Navajo Nation is surrounded by several National Parks and
National Monuments of unparalleled beauty and historic and cultural
significance. Among them are Canyon de Chelley (parts of which are
included within the boundaries of the chapter communities I represent
in the Navajo Council), the Grand Canyon, Glen Canyon, Bears Ears, and
Chaco Canyon. It is no surprise that outsiders want to visit these
lands. These places have inspired our people for generations, providing
a place of refuge in times of danger, and sources of strength in times
of need.
In general, we welcome others to come and experience these special
places, but we also insist that visitors treat them with respect. Our
people have lived in these lands since time immemorial and the land is
filled with sacred sites where we go to connect with our past and
remember who we are as a people. Many of us continue to pray to the
Holy People who have watched over us since the time of our emergence
into this world. These sites are as important to us as churches,
temples, and synagogues are to the true believers of other faiths.
It is because of this deep connection to the land that it is
important for us to be involved in any plans to open these lands to the
wider public, including mere observations from the sky. It has long
been the position of the Navajo people that we own our land from that
which is below the ground to the top of the sky. Though we might phrase
its origins differently, we have long held to common law doctrine of ad
coelum.\1\ We did not give up the rights to the sky when we signed the
Treaty of 1868. We recognize the need for the federal government to
regulate the sky in order to ensure air traffic is orderly and safe,
but the Navajo Nation needs to be included in the regulation of Navajo
air space, especially of lower flying aircraft that can impact the
daily lives of the Navajo people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ From the Roman maxim: Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum
et ad inferos (``He who owns the land, to him belongs everything up to
heaven, and everything down to hell'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is with this background in mind that I would like to begin my
testimony on the National Parks Air Tour Management Program.
Risks of Air Tours
I would like to begin by laying out some of the risks to having air
tours over our land. There are three primary areas of concern that any
air travel plan (not just air tours) should take into consideration:
Impacts on the Community, Impacts on Cultural Sites, and Impacts on the
Environment.
Community Impacts
In the many consultations we have had to discuss air tours over
Canyon de Chelly, privacy is one of the most common concerns brought up
by community members. The vast majority of air tour operators fly out
of Las Vegas or Flagstaff. Unlike most commercial flights, these
operators tend to fly lower to the ground, meaning it may be possible
for passengers to see what Navajo residents are doing in the privacy of
their own backyards. Whether it is butchering a sheep, planting a
garden, or relaxing during a family gathering, no one likes to think
that voyeuristic travelers in the sky may be watching them like they
are primitive savages that need to be observed. A flight from Flagstaff
or Las Vegas to Canyon de Chelly would fly over thousands of Navajo
homes in dozens of communities. The concern is more pronounced for
families living near the tour sites. Navajo families continue to live
and work on the rim of the Grand Canyon, and many Navajo still descend
into the canyon using the traditional trails. Canyon de Chelly poses an
even more significant concern for privacy as it is even more heavily
populated, with Navajo families living along the rim and on the canyon
floor.
The privacy concerns also extend beyond the homes of those living
close to the tour sites. Many Navajo enter sites like Rainbow Bridge,
the Grand Canyon, and Canyon de Chelly to participate in ceremonies.
Less as decade ago, there was an incident that scandalized the Navajo
people, when a helicopter tour in Canyon de Chelly spotted an ongoing
ceremony and flew in for a closer look, ruining the experience for all
involved. This is not a unique experience. There have been dozens of
low flying aircraft, many of which we have been able to identify as air
tours interrupting our people in some of their most sacred moments.
There is a significant concern that if the number of air tours
increases, it could interrupt ceremonies or expose something that is
meant to be sacred and private to the public eye.
In addition to potential privacy concerns, depending on the
frequency of air tours, the noise pollution could also have detrimental
impacts on livelihood and health. Navajo ranchers are all too familiar
with the regular military flights over northern Arizona. The noise from
these aircraft regularly scares livestock and increases the stress of
those on the ground. Earlier this year, a huge military aircraft flew
over our visitor center in Monument Valley disturbing residents and
visitors alike. This particular aircraft was notable for flying at an
altitude that appeared to be dangerously low to those on the ground,
but the fact is, these occurrences are not rare. Military aircraft fly
over Navajo land in the Four Corners and Monument Valley areas several
times a month, disturbing residents and scarring livestock.
A significant increase in the number of low-flying aircraft
associated with air tours could dramatically increase noise pollution
for communities closest to the tour sites. Without knowing how often
flights would be scheduled, it is impossible to know the full potential
health impacts, but many studies have shown exposure to regular noise
pollution from aircraft can lead to increased stress, cognitive
impairment, and cardiovascular disease, among other problems.\2\ Fixed
wing planes are better though still problematic, but helicopter tours
in particular could significantly impact Navajo families living in the
immediate adjacent areas of the tours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Benz, S., Kuhlmann, J., Jeram, S., et al. (2022). Impact of
Aircraft Noise on Health. In: Leylekian, L., Covrig, A., Maximova, A.
(eds) Aviation Noise Impact Management. Springer, Cham. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91194-2_7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cultural Impacts
One of the biggest concerns for the Navajo Nation is damage or loss
to sacred and culturally significant sites.
Our people maintain a cultural connection with the landscape. In
addition to the historical significance of ancient sites, there is also
active cultural and spiritual significance. For example, White House
Ruins in Canyon de Chelly (Kinii'na'igai) has an associated ceremonial
history, and some Navajo people still visit it as part of their
ceremonial practices. Specific places and natural features (e.g.,
Spider Rock and Fortress Rock) are physical expressions of the defining
stories and events in the history of the Navajo people and retain
profound spiritual and sacred significance. Spider Rock, a tall spire
in Canyon de Chelly, is considered the home of Spider Woman, a
benevolent figure who is recognized in many traditional Native American
oral stories as a guide, protector, healer, teacher, disciplinarian,
adviser and spiritual leader. The natural setting, surroundings, and
views of Spider Rock are vitally important in conveying respect for
Spider Woman and her home, in sharing lessons taught by Spider Woman
regarding weaving, and in establishing a geographical context for oral
histories, as well as healing ceremonies.
Throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s, military flights over
the Navajo Nation were particularly problematic due to the regular
emissions of sonic booms. From August 11, 1966, to October 6, 1966,
there were 26 recorded sonic booms over Canyon de Chelly, including ``a
shock in Canyon del Muerto [that] caused a large portion of overhanging
cliff to fall, which damaged a cliff dwelling below.'' \3\ Despite the
damage, military flights continued, and concerns over the impacts of
sonic booms lasted about a decade, with National Park Service, Bureau
of Land Management, and Navajo officials regularly monitoring ancient
and more modern structures (like the Hubbell Trading Post) for damage.
These sites are irreplaceable, and the damage done during this time
cannot be undone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Brugge, D., Wilson, R. (1976). Administrative History: Canyon
de Chelly National Monument/Arizona. Chapter 10. United States
Department of the Interior: National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/
parkhistory/online_books/cach/adhi.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though the risk posed by air tours may be less than that of active
military traffic, the risk is still real. The close physical presence
of even small aircraft poses a risk to the preservation of historic,
cultural, and sacred sites as it can kick up dust and generate noise
vibrations in the area, potentially leading to erosion or other forms
of disruption and damage. But the larger concern consistently raised by
local Navajo residents during consultations on air tours in Canyon de
Chelly relates to plans for dealing with the worst-case scenario.
No one expects a plane crash when they go on tours, but accidents
do happen, and they are more likely to occur when aircraft fly low and
close to cliffs to allow their passengers to get a good view of a site.
If a plane or helicopter were to crash, it could cause significant
damage to archeological sites, and defile the sacred sites. The more
important a site, the more likely air tours will want to visit,
increasing the risk. Given the historical impact of military
overflights, there is a heightened sensitivity among community members
to any activities involving aircraft. Addressing these risks requires a
careful and inclusive approach to air tour management, incorporating
the perspectives and concerns of the Navajo people to ensure
sustainable and respectful practices in our territories.
Environmental Impacts
In addition to the impacts on Navajo citizens and the potential
risks to cultural sites, there is also a potential environmental
impact. Aircraft emissions and noise can contribute to pollution,
affecting air and water quality, disrupting the natural soundscape, and
potentially impacting the region's delicate ecological balance.
Commercial aviation accounts for a significant portion of greenhouse
gas emissions contributing to climate change, but even the non-
CO2 combustion emissions can impact the climate, and they
are known to have a significant impact on local air quality.\4\ We have
also already seen significant effects on local wildlife in the area due
to noise pollution, including impacts on animals of great significance
to the Navajo people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Federal Aviation Administration (2021). United States: 2021
Aviation Climate Action Plan. https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/
2021-11/Aviation_Climate_Action_Plan.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To begin, there is significant concern for nesting raptors. We have
specifically observed impacts on our golden eagles, but the risk
pertains to the larger group of birds in the category (i.e., hawks,
eagles, falcons, owls). During the spring nesting season, which for
golden eagles runs roughly from February to June, the Navajo Nation
Department of Fish and Wildlife has documented failed nests due to
disruption from aircraft. The concern is low flying aircraft, in
particular helicopters, flushing nesting birds from their nests during
the egg incubation period of the nesting season. Golden eagles are some
of our earliest nesting raptors with some pairs laying eggs in early
February. By the end of the month nearly 95% of the population has laid
eggs if they are going to nest that year. When a bird is flushed from
the nest in late winter or early spring, the eggs become cold quickly
and if they are not kept warm, the eggs will die. Depending on air
temperatures and other weather factors this can occur in as little as
15 mins. Once flushed most eagles take their time returning to the nest
as they tend to soar high above and watch for danger before returning.
For some pairs this might be 45 mins to an hour. Our Fish and Wildlife
team is careful to minimize flying during our annual eagle nesting
surveys until late March or early April, to ensure most eggs have
hatched and the weather is warmer. Even then there is a concern that
downy chicks will catch a chill if they are left for too long without a
parent to shelter them from the elements, but at least chicks can
withstand longer time periods exposed to the elements than eggs can.
Another example is low-flying aircraft disrupting wintering big-
game animals (mule deer and elk) while on winter range. Our team often
sees this around Canyon de Chelly. The mesa tops around the canyon are
some of the Navajo's most extensive big-game wintering grounds. Low-
flying aircraft force these animals to flush and run, which burns many
calories at a time of year when animals survive on stored body fat and
face difficulties finding high-quality forage. Movement can also be
restricted during snowfall events, with deep snow making it hard for
animals to move. When flushed and pushed by low-flying aircraft, these
animals are forced out of preferred wintering areas into more marginal
habitats and burn more stored energy to ``escape'' the aircraft. All of
which results in an increased risk of predation, injury, and lower
physical fitness to withstand the winter season. In extreme cases, the
adverse effects may manifest as reduced reproduction in the following
year. A doe or cow in poor physical shape will not ovulate during that
successive season if they do not have the stored energy to carry a fawn
or calf to term.
A final example of impacts on wildlife is that of the big-horned
sheep on Navajo. During the spring lambing season, aircraft flushing
and pushing animals around puts big-horn sheep mothers at risk of
birthing complications that result in neonate mortality or low survival
due to lamb abandonment. There are times when utility companies using
aircraft to check lines or do maintenance work are requested to not fly
during the lambing season to avoid negative impacts on lambing for big-
horn sheep. This is particularly critical right now as some of our
sheep populations have had no successful reproduction in recent years
due to the impacts of a pneumonia-like disease, mycoplasma
ovipneumoniae (Movi), in the herd. Which makes it all the more
important to protect any lambs that are born.
Management Plan with Tribal Consent
Despite all of the risks associated with expanding air tourism in
and around the Navajo Nation, I want to be clear that we do not oppose
air tourism across the board. This is why tribal consultation is so
important. The Navajo Nation would happily endorse additional air tours
in the surrounding national parks under the condition that a
comprehensive management plan is developed in collaboration and with
the consent of the affected tribal communities, ensuring that their
perspectives, concerns, and cultural considerations are incorporated
into those plans.
I am happy to report that National Park Service (``NPS'') has
engaged in extensive consultation regarding air tours in Canyon de
Chelly. The local NPS office reached out to Navajo leadership in Window
Rock, the Navajo Nation Heritage and Historic Preservation Department,
the Navajo Nation Department of Fish and Wildlife, and local chapter
officials for communities located near the canyon. In general, these
consultations have been respectful and inclusive, allowing the voices
of the participants to be heard. They listened to our concerns for
wildlife and those of the local residents in the canyon and proposed a
preferred alternative that more or less aligns with the majority of the
concerns raised. While opinions varied on how air tours should be
regulated and other substantive matters, for the most part participants
were pleased with the conduct of those leading the meetings.
Of course, that does not mean the process cannot be improved. Some
participants complained that the process was not very transparent or
straightforward. They only found out about consultation sessions after
it was too late for meaningful preparation to research the issues. And
it was not always clear to participants how comments from the local
community were being incorporated into the final policy. And while
consultation on Canyon de Chelly was well run, despite there being room
for improvement, there appears to have been less engagement in planning
for Rainbow Bridge and the Grand Canyon. We expect that in the future
the need for consultation on air tourism may also arise for Glen
Canyon, Bears Ears, Grand Staircase-Escalante, and even Chaco Canyon.
To improve the process, it is essential that local communities are
involved. Despite the best efforts of the Navajo Nation government to
identify significant sites, only the local community is going to know
certain sacred spots such as the resting place of jish \5\ or the
gathering places and timing for local ceremonies that should be avoided
during an air tour. But local Navajo officials often find it difficult
to participate in consultation, whether it is from a lack of sufficient
notice or a lack of technical capabilities. Many local chapter
officials do not have regular access to broadband internet, making
video calls difficult. Even regular postal services are often sporadic
due to the lack of local addressing on the Nation and a reliance on
P.O. boxes. Federal agencies need to engage tribal communities in
consultation at every level of tribal government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Jish are sacred implements used in various ceremonies and are
considered to be living sources of power. When jish are no longer used,
their final resting place is sacred and should not be disturbed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These concerns apply equally to other tribes, especially smaller
tribes without the resources of the Navajo Nation. The Federal Aviation
Administration (``FAA'') and NPS have an obligation to meet tribes at
their level of capacity and engagement. The pace of the consultation
process needs to be set by the tribes themselves, and not be rushed to
accommodate the preferred pace of environmental groups or industry.
Effective consultation requires federal agencies to engage with tribes
on their level, and not assume that local leaders have the resources to
engage agencies on a national level or even online.
Federal agencies also need to cast a wide net. While local
communities are indispensable to meaningful consultation, all
interested communities need to be involved, as some tribal members
travel great distances to participate in ceremonies, especially in
places like the Grand Canyon, Bears Ears, and Rainbow Bridge. We
understand that this may slow the process down, but it is better to
have a thorough and honest consultation process than to have a fast
one. Tribes should not be rushed just because some federal officials
want to push a particular agenda. Failure to work with tribes on their
level and at their pace will only lead to misunderstandings,
discontent, and opposition to future projects for lack of a good
process.
Economic Opportunities for Tribal Members
Even assuming consultation is adequate, an essential aspect of
securing the Navajo Nation's support for air tours is the firm belief
that tribal members should have the opportunity to benefit economically
from such activities. As it currently stands there is almost no
economic benefit to the Navajo people from air tourism, despite our
bearing the bulk of the costs from the negative externalities and risks
described above. When tourists visit the Navajo Nation on the ground,
at least there is an opportunity for them to spend money on local
accommodations and at other local businesses such as jewelry and food
stands. But air tours typically launch out of Las Vegas or Flagstaff,
which is where all of the economic benefits accrue.
Engaging local Navajo residents in the economic aspects of air
tours could also remedy some of the potential risks of air tours as
well as enhance the experience for the tourists. Members of the local
community will know better than tour companies operating out of more
distant cities when it would be inappropriate to schedule tours or what
places a tour should avoid altogether. Our people possess an intimate
understanding and connection to the cultural significance of these
sites and will ensure their tours are managed with the utmost care and
respect for the special cultural and historical heritage of these
areas.
Tourists would also benefit from the traditional knowledge of
Native tour guides. Air tours are a natural platform for storytelling
and the sharing of cultural insights that would enrich the visitor
experience with authentic local perspectives. By using local guides,
tour companies could ensure this cultural enhancement occurs in a way
that enhances rather than exploits tribal cultures, allowing Indigenous
knowledge to be shared in natural way, and not be reduced just to that
of another tourist attraction. This would be more likely to occur if
tribes were more heavily involved in the planning, execution, and
management of air tours, creating avenues for employment,
entrepreneurship, and economic growth within the tribal community.
Existing tour companies should be required to hire local guides to
gain these advantages. But to enjoy the greatest economic benefit, it
would be ideal if more tour companies were established on the Navajo
Nation and owned by local Navajo entrepreneurs. For this reason, air
tour management plans should include incentives for existing tour
operators to mentor Navajo entrepreneurs, and a certain percentage of
available flights should be reserved for Navajo-owned businesses to
ensure local residents benefit from the existence of tours. These plans
should also include a requirement that tour companies operating in
Navajo air space pay Navajo taxes for the privilege. Tour companies
also need to coordinate their services with on the ground operators, so
visitors know where they can get more information about the sites they
visit, as these really should be experienced in person.
If done right, the air tourism industry has the potential to spur
economic development across the Navajo Nation. Economic opportunities
generated by air tours can act as catalysts for community development
within the Navajo Nation by improving our airports and related
infrastructure. This will not only support the tours directly, but
increase transportation options for all tribal members, making it
easier for tribal members to access essential services and connect with
other communities. These transportation hubs would also naturally lead
to the creation of more jobs and a strong support economy for incoming
tourism. Several potential hubs already exist, such as Tuba City,
Chinle, or Window Rock. They just need the right investment.
Admittedly, tribal governments would need to draft their own
aviation tourism plans to take full advantage of the potential
opportunities of increased air tours in our lands and surrounding
National Parks and Monuments, but tribes cannot do this alone. Existing
companies already have control over the market and the government
connections both in Congress and the Administration to get the
necessary permits to operate in this field. As opportunities arise,
tribes will need support from the FAA and NPS to help our communities
compete in this industry on an equal footing.
However, recognizing and prioritizing the inclusion of Navajo
citizens in the economic opportunities arising from air tours in our
traditional homelands, including in the surrounding National Parks and
Monuments, is not only a matter of economic fairness but also a
strategic approach that aligns with cultural preservation, community
development, and sustainable tourism practices. I urge the federal
government in general and this Subcommittee specifically to consider
and actively support initiatives that ensure the direct and meaningful
involvement of Navajo citizens in this endeavor.
Conclusion
As addressed above, the Navajo people have expressed significant
concerns with expanding air tours in National Parks in and near our
traditional homelands. To address these concerns, it is crucial for
tribal nations, government agencies, and tourism stakeholders to engage
in collaborative and culturally sensitive planning. This includes
ensuring that the benefits of air tourism are equitably shared with
tribal communities and that the negative impacts are mitigated as much
as possible. It also involves respecting tribal sovereignty and the
rights of Indigenous peoples over their ancestral lands and cultures,
even if this means air tours will be limited or completely banned in
some areas.
The Navajo Nation looks forward to continuing engagement in
collaborative discussions and partnerships with relevant stakeholders,
including federal agencies, to ensure that the implementation of air
tours aligns with the principles outlined above. By adhering to these
guidelines, we believe that air tours can be a positive force for
economic development while respecting and preserving the cultural and
environmental richness of the tribal lands.
Ahehee' and thank you.
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much, Mr. Slater. I now recognize
Mr. Schlaefli for his 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MARK A. SCHLAEFLI, PRESIDENT, RUSHMORE
HELICOPTERS, CUSTER, SOUTH DAKOTA
Mr. Schlaefli. Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury,
members of the Committee, thank you for the leadership in
holding this hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to provide
this testimony today.
I am the President, Owner of Rushmore Helicopters, Black
Hills Aerial Adventures, Badlands Helicopters. Along with a
business partner, I own and operate four additional helicopter
operations primarily in South Dakota, but we also operate in
Wyoming and Montana, as well. My companies provide a full
spectrum of helicopter services, but our primary focus has been
on tourism.
I started flying in 2007 as a second career. In 2021, I
made the jump and fulfilled a long-time dream of owning my own
companies with the purchase of four companies operating in the
Black Hills of South Dakota. We have since added two
operations, and currently operate nine aircraft and employ 30
amazing individuals. We are a local, small business. We take
great pride in the community we live and operate in. We address
community concerns, and constantly seek ways to raise the bar
on safety and community compatibility.
Aerial tours represent the single lowest-impact form of
visitation for our man-made and natural wonders, providing a
unique window from which we share vibrant culture and
historical landscapes with the world.
We support the concept of the ATMP, all right? However, I
strenuously oppose the process by which the ATMPs are being
developed. I think responsible operators everywhere have a
responsibility to collaborate with all of the stakeholders
involved and arrive at an operational method that serves all of
those interests. However, I can't get behind and support the
process by which these ATMPs have been developed. We believe
the National Park Service and the FAA did not perform the
required due diligence to determine the true impacts to
operators, the public, and the park unit's resources.
As the Committee is aware, Congress passed the National
Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 to regulate commercial
air tour operations over the parks. It requires the FAA and the
NPS to develop these ATMPs. The ATMP for Mount Rushmore
National Memorial and Badlands National Park eliminates all air
tour flights in Mount Rushmore or the Badlands. This represents
over 9,000 flights that will be eliminated with the stroke of a
pen, and likely end my companies.
Air Tour Management Plans were never intended to be air
tour elimination plans. The removal of my companies represents
$55 million in the local economy over 10 years, and threatens
to destroy local institutions that have been in operation since
the 1960s.
Air tours represent the lowest impact form of visitation.
Air tours require no ground-based infrastructure at the park,
no need for roads, trails, signs, bathrooms, garbage cans, or
other services and the maintenance of those services. We leave
nothing behind, take only memories. We represent an incredible
and understated benefit to the environment.
The ATMPs also close the door on future technology. New
emerging technology in the form of electric aircraft have the
potential to be quiet and sustainable, providing environmental
and economic benefits. ATMPs in my case closed the door to
those vehicles that are right on the edge of introduction. In
2024, they will start flying in other countries.
Air tours are a vital option for many visitors, providing
once-in-a-lifetime memories. The national parks should be
available for all visitors to see. Eliminating flights unfairly
limits the elderly, very young, disabled, and others. Limiting
flights is discriminating to those who might not have the time,
the resources, or physical ability to see the park any other
way. Freedom to access the parks by all means should be
preserved. Every day, my companies provide opportunities for
the aforementioned to enjoy our parks. I know from personal
experience these flights are life-changing. I have personally
flown many guests with disabilities, to include the legally
blind and quadriplegic veterans. The service we provide
matters.
In conclusion, as outdoorsmen and conservation-minded
owners, we believe it is essential to preserve our parks yet
ensure all can visit. I strenuously oppose these ATMPs, but
would wholeheartedly welcome collaborative engagement with the
FAA, the National Park Service, and all interested parties to
engineer solutions to benefit the park and the public. The
elimination of my business without recourse should not be
allowed to happen.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schlaefli follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark A. Schlaefli, President, Rushmore
Helicopters, Black Hills Aerial Adventures, and Badlands Helicopters
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on Air Tour
Management Plans (ATMP).
I am the President and Owner of Rushmore Helicopters, Black Hills
Aerial Adventures and Badlands Helicopters. Along with a business
partner, I also own and operate four additional helicopter operations
that primarily operate in South Dakota, Wyoming and Montana. My
companies provide a full spectrum of helicopter aviation services, with
a primary focus on aerial tourism.
Aviation was a second career for me, and I started flying in 2007.
I sought opportunity and was given a wide spectrum of experience
working for tour and utility operators. I worked my way up as a line
pilot, training director, chief pilot and director of operations. In
2021 I fulfilled a long-time dream of owning and operating my own
companies with the purchase of four interconnected operations along
with a partner. We have added two operations since 2021, and currently
operate a fleet of 9 aircraft and employ 30 amazing individuals.
Aerial tours represent the single lowest impact form of visitation
for our man made and natural wonders, providing a unique window from
which we share vibrant cultural and historical landscapes with the
world. Like ground-based tours, air tours are a vital part of the
visitor experience to our parks, ensuring the lands set aside for all
can be accessed by all.
We are local. We are a small business, and we take great pride in
the community that we live and operate in. We work closely with the
communities in which we operate and seek out ways to be better
neighbors. We routinely work with communities and stakeholders to
protect the areas in which we live. We are responsive, often changing
operations in order to address community concerns. We constantly seek
ways to raise the bar on safety and community compatibility.
Background on Air Tour Regulation
As the committee is aware, Congress passed the National Parks Air
Tour Management Act of 2000 (NPATMA) to regulate commercial air tour
operations over the National Park System and to guide the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Park Service (NPS) on
the agencies roles with air tours over the national parks. The Act did
not alter the FAA's sole authority over and control of the National
Airspace System (NAS). The NPS is to work closely with the FAA to help
protect the natural and cultural resources of the national parks.
NPATMA requires the FAA and the NPS to develop ATMPs for the national
parks.
NPATMA granted existing air tour operators interim operating
authority (IOA) by the FAA to conduct air tours until an ATMP could be
developed. IOA represents a cap on the number of overflights allowed to
that operator in a year and does not specify the routes or operating
conditions. While it does not specify routes and altitudes, operators
have worked closely with individual park units to craft sustainable
parameters which have resulted in the routes and altitudes flown today.
Section 40128(a) prohibits overflights of National Parks, unless
there is an agreement in place with FAA, an ATMP, or a voluntary
agreement. The original statute required ATMPs for any national park or
tribal land for which an ATMP is not in effect whenever a person
applies for authority to conduct a commercial air tour operation over
the park. The original statute did not give the FAA or the NPS
flexibility regarding voluntary agreements and it did not include a 50-
flight exemption. In 2012, as part of FAA Reauthorization, Congress,
recognizing that the FAA and the NPS were having procedural
difficulties with issuing ATMPs in a timely manner, added the
flexibility of establishing voluntary agreements with air tour
operators as an alternative to an ATMP and exempted National Parks with
50 or fewer overflights per year. This amendment was meant to assist
the FAA and the NPS is streamlining the ATMP process.
The Mt. Rushmore National Memorial, while not a ``National Park''
is included as the definition of ``National Park'' because the statute
is broad enough to include ``any unit of the National Park System.''
(49 U.S.C. 40128(g)(5)).
In 2019 a coalition of Hawaii residents and the group Public
Employees for Environmental Responsibility, representing current and
former public employees, sued the FAA and NPS for failure to complete
the ATMP process. On May 1, 2020, the US Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia ordered the FAA and NPS to adopt ATMPs or
voluntary agreements for 23 named NPS areas. It gave the agencies 24
months to comply.
When faced with the prospect of a court order compelling the ATMPs
at some parks, the FAA and NPS have taken action in a rushed manner
that did not provide the opportunity for contemporary data to be
evaluated or for direct involvement by critical stakeholders. The issue
for me, as an operator, is that I received no notice that the FAA and
NPS were going to try to speed through the 23 parks and include Mount
Rushmore, a memorial, as part of this lawsuit.
Economic Consideration
When I took ownership of my companies, the previous owners' Interim
Operating Authority (IOA) transferred over to me in the purchase. This
IOA was issued to my companies based on the volume of tours that were
being conducted and to allow for growth. The IOA allows me to take
visitors inside the boundaries of Mount Rushmore National Memorial and
Badlands National Park. Our routes are very specific, and we avoid
overflight of sensitive areas at altitudes that minimize impacts.
According to the NPS documents, on average, from 2017-2019, 3,914
commercial air tours occurred in Mount Rushmore National Memorial every
year and 1,425 commercial air tours occurred in Badlands National Park
every year. My company represents over 99% of those flights. In 2020,
2021 and 2022, those numbers were significantly higher. Contemporary
data was available for analysis, and the agencies selected older data
favorable to their desired outcome.
In ATMP's, it is mentioned how the current air tour operations
result in unacceptable impacts to the Park under NPS Management
policies 2006 1.4.7.1. However, no conclusive support for this was
included. Since there is no conclusive documentation for this claim,
intensive research should have been required before making a decision
under NPS Management policies 2006 4.1.1, which states:
``Similarly, planning for park operations, development, and
management activities that might affect natural resources will
be guided by high-quality, scientifically acceptable
information, data, and impact assessment. Where existing
information is inadequate, the collection of new information
and data may be required before decision-making. Long-term
research or monitoring may also be necessary to correctly
understand the effects of management actions on natural
resources whose function and significance are not clearly
understood''
The ATMP cites the management policies which require ``high-
quality, scientifically acceptable information, data, and impact
assessment'' before implementing plans. The ATMP indicates ``possible''
adverse effects to support the decision and is not reflective of the
required ``high quality scientific'' requirement. Given the lack of
high-quality, scientifically acceptable information, data, and impact
assessment, reliance on these policies is misplaced and highly
prejudicial. It is our assertion that the process is significantly
flawed and discriminates against my companies and the flying public.
We as a company support the concept of an ATMP. Safe, responsible
operators should be directly involved with stakeholders to operate in
ways that benefit the public, the park units and keep operators
accountable. There is a responsible manner in which air tour companies
can conduct business and work hand in hand with the park units to
achieve a beneficial relationship.
The ATMP for Mount Rushmore National Memorial and Badlands National
Park eliminates all IOA and eliminates any aerial tour flights within
the boundaries of Mount Rushmore or the Badlands. This represents over
9,000 flights that were issued to me and authorized by the FAA. This
IOA is how the companies were built and eliminating it with the stroke
of a pen will likely end my companies which have over 30 years of
experience operating air tours in the ATMP areas. The loss of IOA and
associated flights represents a 5.4-million-dollar reduction of revenue
to our companies, effectively ending our ability to operate. Air Tour
Management Plans were never intended to be Air Tour Elimination Plans.
I strenuously oppose these ATMPs and believe that the NPS and the
FAA did not in good faith perform the required due diligence to
determine the true impacts to operators, the public, and the park units
resources. Engagement with stakeholders could have resulted in a
Voluntary Agreement that protects resources while supporting air
commerce.
The NPS failed to reach out to the operators to determine the
economic impacts from implementing a management plan that completely
eliminates overflights. The removal of my companies represents a $55
million part of the local economy over ten years and threatens to
destroy local institutions that have been in operation since the 1960s.
In addition to the overall impact to my companies and my employees,
local economies and suppliers are also affected in a significant way.
The town of Keystone, South Dakota sits at the bottom of the hill on
the way to Mt. Rushmore. My helicopter operations are immediately
adjacent to downtown Keystone, and many travel to Keystone for the
purpose of utilizing our service. Those travelers tend to stay in
Keystone and spend money supporting the local economy. Therefore,
Rushmore Helicopters helps to generate revenue for other companies,
which would be affected in a significant way.
Environmental/Safety Considerations
Beyond economic considerations, I believe the agencies did not
account for the true environmental impact that elimination of
overflights would cause. Eliminating air tour overflights does nothing
to address other non-tour aviation activity which have no restrictions
within park boundaries. These other activities represent continued
requirement for infrastructure and support, where air tours remove
those impacts.
It is important to note that air tour operations are very
conscientious of sensitive areas and have adjusted over the years to
try and reduce impacts. Up until the announcement of the ATMP, my
companies hosted NPS staff for an annual educational seminar for our
staff, explaining the importance of the memorial, and a brief history.
We also used this time to discuss issues and check in on how we are
performing. We were directly told annually that everything was working
well, and NPS appreciated our efforts to minimize impacts.
We have on more than one occasion provided air support free of
charge for Badlands, whether it be a search for hikers or a lost pet.
For Mt. Rushmore and the surrounding wilderness, we are often the first
set of eyes on fires that start in the forest. We have not received a
single complaint from either Mt. Rushmore or Badlands in the time that
we have owned the companies and have a solid track record with
addressing concerns. We have changed entire offerings based on
community input as a part of our dedication to compatibility.
It is our assertion that safety has been fully ignored by the FAA
in this process. In all of the documentation that was crafted to
justify the ATMP, safety was not mentioned. During the one public
meeting that took place over zoom, questions directed at the FAA and
NPS regarding risk assessments and safety were not adequately answered.
We believe this is a monumental failure on the part of the FAA and
ignores their stated mission, vision and values.
Air tours are ultra-low impact and require no ground-based
infrastructure at the park, which allows visitors accessibility without
the need for roads, trails, signs, bathrooms, garbage cans, or other
services. We leave nothing behind and take only memories. Often
maligned under the guise of ``noise'', air tours represent an
incredible and understated benefit to the environment.
With the elimination of overflights, we are reducing opportunities
to access our parks in a way that leaves little to no environmental
footprint or disturbance. Natural sound is a renewable resource.
Through route adjustments and altitude restrictions, sound is minimal.
Air tour operators, through stewardship and thoughtful practices work
to help preserve our nations parks. This access restriction is
prejudicial and discriminatory.
There are currently no restrictions or mitigation efforts for loud
vehicles operating in the park, some of which make significantly more
noise than a passing helicopter. The Town of Keystone conducted a study
on this very issue a few years ago, and not surprisingly the results
showed that helicopters were not the leading cause of sound.
Looking to the near future, the vertical aviation industry is
moving forward with the exciting new technologies of advanced air
mobility (AAM). The vehicles typically associated with AAM include
electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL), electric short takeoff
and landing (eSTOL), and hybrid-electric aircraft. These aircraft have
the potential to be quiet, safe, sustainable and more affordable as the
industry scales, providing societal, environmental, and economic
benefits to our communities.
AAM operations are poised to begin as soon as 2024, with new
aircraft achieving certification under conventional pathways, being
piloted traditionally, and operating within established air traffic
management rules.
The elimination of air tours to the aircraft of today closes the
door to these vehicles that are on the cusp of introduction. Through
the ATMPs the agencies are turning away from opportunities, progress
and technologies that will benefit the parks.
The aviation workforce is experiencing significant shortages, and
they are only projected to continue. The FAA puts a significant amount
of effort into workforce development and clearly recognizes the need
for a healthy system to create the aviators of tomorrow. Our companies
are directly involved in this process, by providing opportunities for
pilots to gain experience. Our staff is taught the safety protocols and
decision making required to be a successful aviator. As ATMPs shutter
my companies and other air tour companies, it has a significant
negative impact on the rest of the aviation sector. Air tour companies
are an important source of workforce opportunities that once reduced or
removed, presents challenges to the aviation industry, already hurting
for pilots and mechanics.
Access Concerns
As we move past the pandemic years, many National Parks saw their
resources strained by the large number of visitors as the public began
to travel again. Air tours are a vital option for many visitors,
providing once-in-a-lifetime memories. Visitors taking advantage of air
tours benefit in tangible ways, that benefit both visitors and parks.
Air tours provide access to all while reducing infrastructure and
impacts to parks.
As the NPS and the FAA have released the ATMPs it is very clear
that the agencies have an agenda to eliminate the air tour industry.
While this may sound like a dramatic statement, in the case of my
companies this exactly what is happening. My IOA was chosen for
elimination, not reduction. Many of the early ATMP's proposed
reductions based on 2017-2019 numbers. Mine are eliminated. Elimination
harms all of the stakeholders. The ATMP is discriminatory against
visitors who choose to experience the national parks from the air.
The national parks should be available for all visitors to see.
Eliminating flights over the park unfairly limits the elderly, very
young, disabled, and others to experience the park. Limiting flights
over the parks is discriminating to those who might not have the time,
resources, or physical ability to see the park any other way. Freedom
to choose a visitation method should be preserved.
Every day we fly, my companies provide opportunities for the
aforementioned to enjoy our parks. I can tell you from personal
experience, it is life changing for those people. I have personally
flown many guests with disabilities to include the legally blind to
quadriplegic veterans. For many this is a bucket list item and their
only opportunity for an equal visitation experience. This service
matters.
Process Concerns
The draft ATMP for Mt Rushmore National Memorial and for Badlands
National Park was developed and proposed without proper involvement of
key stakeholders as required by NPATMA. The FAA and NPS have repeatedly
made public statements to indicate that stakeholder involvement was
conducted, and coordination occurred with the local operators. I would
know if there had been coordination with the local operators because I
am the local operator. There was none. The level of misinformation and
deflection of the questions was eye opening.
Safety has been ignored in the development of these ATMPs. There
was outreach to the local Flight Standards District Offices (FSDO) but
input from the FSDO was directly ignored and not considered. The
helicopter expert in the FSDO was barred from participating in the
conversations. Why would you not involve the one person in the office
with the expertise to provide sound input and recommendations? I
believe this is just a small example of the ``check the box'' attitude
the NPS is using to force these plans into place. I believe this has
also manifest itself in the manner in which the NPS has conducted
environmental analysis. The analysis was all prepared in house without
objective evaluation.
I believe the sound models used to develop the ATMPs are
inaccurate. For example, the routes and altitudes used in the
Environmental Assessment (EA) do not reflect what has been happening at
Mt. Rushmore for the past three years since I have taken ownership. The
town of Keystone conducted a third-party noise study to determine
helicopter impact and found that motorcycles were the chief producer of
noise. The analysis conducted in the EA inadequately evaluates sound
from outside sources whether they be aviation or non-aviation.
To be more specific on what I believe was a rush to develop the
ATMP without first updating data, I'd like to focus on a few examples
from the Mount Rushmore ATMP. The EA uses operational data from 2017-
2019 because of ``continued abnormalities associated with the COVID-19
pandemic and the unavailability of reporting data for 2021 or 2022
during most of the planning effort.'' It also uses noise data collected
in 2003, 2007 and 2012, all more than ten years ago. However, the NPS
does have data on the number of national memorial visitors in 2020
(2,074,986), 2021 (2,525,868), and 2022 (2,440,449). It is now 2023,
and current data would be more relevant to the current operations and
noise impacts since about 300,000-400,000 more people are visiting
Mount Rushmore per year than in 2012. Despite this, the NPS moved
forward with developing the ATMP instead of updating the data which it
relied upon.
In section 2.2.1 of the EA, it states that one of the reasons why
the draft ATMP restricts air tour operations in Mount Rushmore is that:
``The interdisciplinary team also concluded that the existing levels of
air tours diminishes Wilderness character due to its effects on natural
soundscapes in adjacent Wilderness managed by the USFS.''. The agency
never made clear if it consulted with the Unites States Forest Service,
and if so, they have not shared the comments received.
However, a larger problem exists. The ATMP is specifically looking
at the Mount Rushmore Memorial. It is unclear what statutory or
regulatory basis the agency used for incorporating areas outside Mount
Rushmore in its analysis. To complicate matters, the elimination of
park overflights could potentially result in a significant increase of
overflights of the wilderness they are claiming to be concerned about.
I have to remind myself that Mt. Rushmore was made by the destruction
of natural resources. If the NPS was concerned about wilderness
character they would do well to stop lighting the memorial and
conducting other activities that are completely unnatural such as the
fireworks displays.
In developing the alternatives for the draft ATMP for Mount
Rushmore, an agency team considered ``the noise impacts of existing
routes and operations, the Memorial's cultural and natural resources,
the Memorial's existing and natural acoustic environment, visitor
experience, visual resources, and the Wilderness character of the
adjacent Black Elk Wilderness, as well as potential protective measures
that could be included in an ATMP.'' The National Memorial's existing
and natural acoustic environment also includes a tremendous amount of
vehicle traffic. The parking garage is the centerpiece of park
infrastructure.
Section 3.1.2 of the Draft Environmental Assessment states that
``the acoustic impacts of Alternative 2 cannot be modeled because,
although some speculation about air tour routes can be made, it is
unknown where air tours would fly when outside the ATMP planning area
or over the ATMP planning area at or above 5,000 ft. AGL''. The EA also
states that Alternatives 3 and 4 provide beneficial effects. It is left
to wonder why the agency would propose such a draconian approach of
eliminating all air tours when other alternatives provide beneficial
effects and the deleterious effects of Alternative 2 cannot actually be
modeled.
In section 3.6.2 of the Mount Rushmore EA, it notes indirect and
cumulative effects. The EA comments on noise from aircraft used for
wildlife monitoring, firefighting, etc. as well as ``other noise from
building maintenance and construction activities occasionally disrupts
visitors, but these activities are temporary and short-term in
nature''. Air tours are temporary and short term in nature.
The agencies chose a path with the ATMP to eliminate air tours in
Mount Rushmore and Badlands. In the same document outlining the
elimination of my business, the agencies note that other aircraft
noise, maintenance and construction noise disrupts visitors.
Visitors to the National Memorial are temporary and short-term in
nature. Sound from air tour flights is also short-term and temporary.
Why have noise from building maintenance and construction activities,
which could be at a higher level than an air tour, be deemed
permissible, even if it is short term, when it will be disruptive to
the visitor that day? The majority of visitors to Badlands National
Park are also short term, with many choosing to drive through and stop
at a few viewpoints before exiting.
Conclusion
As outdoorsmen and conservation minded owners we believe it is
essential to preserve our National Parks yet enable visitation
opportunities for all to enjoy. All units of the national park system
are not equal. Glacier National Park is not the same as Cabrillo
National Monument. Yellowstone National Park is not the same as Mount
Rushmore National Memorial. A one size fits all solution driven by
ideology is not how we should be deciding how the public may choose to
visit.
While I strenuously oppose the manner in which these ATMPs have
been developed, commercial air tour operators would wholeheartedly
welcome collaborative engagement with the FAA, NPS, and all interested
parties to engineer solutions to benefit the park and the public. The
FAA and the NPS through this action have increased risks, discriminated
against multiple classes of visitors and increased impacts to the
surrounding wilderness. We are faced with the elimination of my
business and life savings as a result of the ATMP. This should not be
allowed to happen.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Schlaefli, President,
Rushmore Helicopters
Questions Submitted by Representative Case
Question 1. Please provide specific quantitative data on the number
of elderly (age 65+) individuals, individuals with disabilities and
youth who have received tours over national park units from your
business over the last five years.
Answer. Following is a breakdown of passengers flown over the past
five years, inside the boundaries of the park units we are authorized
to fly in. Please note, the breakdown of the ``youth'' demographic is
inclusive of children that qualify as a ``lap child'' as defined by FAA
regulation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4286.001
.epsQuestion 2. Are tour participant unable to see Mt. Rushmore
from outside the ATMP area? What is the average visibility from outside
the ATMP area?
Answer. The ATMP area includes the airspace \1/2\ mile from the
boundary of Mt. Rushmore National Memorial and Badlands National Park,
the two park units that my companies currently have FAA authorization
to operate in. Aerial tour participants will have diminished/limited
views of the memorial from outside the ATMP area, dependent on weather
and atmospheric factors. We do experience quite a few days a year with
haze as a result of wildfires elsewhere in the nation among other
causes. This diminished detail from the added distance will have an
adverse effect on visibility for tours being operated outside of the
ATMP area. It is not simply a question of operating outside of the
boundary as we must take into consideration what is below us. We may be
pushed far enough outside of the boundaries that the tour represents
elevated risks that are unacceptable or fails to provide adequate
views.
Franklin Lane, Secretary of the Interior in 1918, interpreted the
purpose of the NPS as maintenance of the national parks in an
``absolutely unimpaired form for the use of future generations'' and at
the same time ``give the public every opportunity to enjoy the parks in
the manner that best satisfied individual taste.''
We believe the public should have the choice to visit the park in
the way that they choose, provided it is accomplished in a way that
does not adversely impact the park units. In the ATMP's prepared for
both Mt. Rushmore and Badlands, the impacts are not properly evaluated
and use outdated and inaccurate information. The language used in both
documents was ``may'' and ``could''. We believe the removal of 100% of
the IOA is a significant overreach that is not justified based on the
material prepared by the NPS.
In the Mt. Rushmore ATMP, it is mentioned how the current air tour
operations result in unacceptable impacts to the Park under NPS
Management policies 2006 1.4.7.1. However no conclusive support for
this was included. Since there is no conclusive documentation for this
claim, intensive research should be required under NPS Management
policies 2006 4.1.1, which states:
Similarly, planning for park operations, development, and
management activities that might affect natural resources will
be guided by high-quality, scientifically acceptable
information, data, and impact assessment. Where existing
information is inadequate, the collection of new information
and data may be required before decision-making. Long-term
research or monitoring may also be necessary to correctly
understand the effects of management actions on natural
resources whose function and significance are not clearly
understood.
The data used was outdated (2003, 2007, 20212) and does not adhere
to the policy above. The ATMP cites the management policies which
require ``high-quality, scientifically acceptable information, data,
and impact assessment'' before implementing plans. The ATMP indicates
possible adverse effects to support the decision and does not document
actual impacts.
It is our assertion that the process is significantly flawed and
discriminates against my companies and the flying public. The
destruction of my businesses and the positive contributions it makes to
thousands of visitors with the stroke of a pen is unacceptable.
Individual park units are not the same. Mt Rushmore is man-made and
was constructed by the destruction of the natural environment. While
the artistry is certainly an amazing accomplishment, the treatment of a
memorial with a parking garage as the centerpiece of the infrastructure
should not be on par with park units with entirely different character
and visitor interaction, such as Yellowstone or Glacier.
We do not seek unlimited access to Mt Rushmore or Badlands, but to
continue to provide ultra-low impact options in a controlled manner
that takes into consideration input from all stakeholders.
Aerial tourism represents the single lowest impact form of
visitation to any park unit. When responsibly operated to protect the
parks while protecting the economic viability of the operator, the park
units benefit. It has been repeated many times before in public comment
and during testimony, but the facts are very compelling. Aerial tours
do not require roads, trails cut through the wilderness, sanitary
facilities, trash removal, park offices or park employee housing and
related infrastructure. The list could go on.
As an outdoor enthusiast, I spend a good bit of my free time in our
national parks, and I treasure them. I would be the first to stand up
to protect our parks. What is occurring with the ATMP is not
protection. In my time outdoors I have had a couple of interesting
experiences that repeat themselves over and over throughout our park
system. One of those is in the Lake Mead National Recreation Area in
Nevada and Arizona. I spent a good bit of time on the lake, and around
the lake hiking and exploring. Sitting on a beach one day, a helicopter
passed over. As many will pass over on their way to the Grand Canyon.
The sound is minimal, and quickly dissipates. On that same beach, a
powerboat will be transiting the lake, with big block engines, and the
noise is both deafening and sustained. Where is the outcry to ban other
types of vehicles that produce much greater levels of sound for much
greater periods of time?
Just this morning, prior to finishing up my comments I took a bike
ride up into Zion Canyon. I used roadways and a paved trail to access
the canyon. The trail was cut into the wilderness and is frequently
bypassed to access the Virgin River. The side trails created by off
trail foot traffic further scars the landscape. Multiple river
crossings on the trail have bridges that are far from natural. The PVC
planking on the bridge makes a significant amount of noise as bicycles
pass over it. Along the trail and along the road, evidence of human
interference with nature is everywhere. Bus stops, lodges,
infrastructure. All of this is an imprint on the natural environment.
If all visitation was by air, none of these impacts would exist.
While the ATMP certainly doesn't deal with anything other than air
tours, the examples above highlight the very discrimination that we are
faced with. Air Tours are the single lowest impact form if visitation,
and that can be proven.
While noise is the most frequent go to with respect to impact
claims, the sounds produced by responsibly operated aircraft are
minimal in comparison to many other forms of visitation. In both the
Badlands and Mt. Rushmore, motorcycle travel is very popular all year,
with a peak before and after the Sturgis Rally. In a noise study
conducted by the town of Keystone at the foot of Mt. Rushmore,
motorcycles took the top spot for noise. Motorcycle traffic increases
every year, as more and more enthusiasts take to the open road.
The most important consideration with moving all aerial tours
outside of the ATMP area is the compression of air traffic into a very
narrow corridor. We are not the only companies operating in the area,
and by removing tour routes inside the ATMP area, all air traffic is
compressed into a single corridor which is a significant elevation of
risk. Safety of air commerce is the mission of the FAA, and safety was
not evaluated or assessed during this process in any material way that
we can find.
Conversations with the local Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO) indicates that they are very concerned about the elevated risks
associated with ATMP's. The recommendations from the FSDO were wholly
ignored in this process by the NPS and FAA Environmental, in addition
to the Principal Operations Inspector (POI) and Helicopter Specialist
in the Rapid City FSDO being excluded from all discussions. This is a
highly irregular situation, as other POI's have been actively involved
in the preparation of ATMP's at other FSDO's. The POI and Helicopter
Expert is the only person who possesses the expertise necessary to
address concerns from the FAA side. None of the FAA environmental or
NPS staff have the expertise to make decisions on airspace use or
safety in air commerce.
While the memorial may be viewed from other locations, the risks
associated with this may rise to unacceptable levels, forcing
unsustainable reductions in numbers of tours, or closure of the company
entirely as a result.
Question 3. What are your company's formal policies and procedures
to provide reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities
seeking air tours? Has your company ever not been able to provide
accommodations to allow an individual with a disability to fly with
your business?
Answer. All of our companies have a policy and procedure for
providing accommodations. Our companies place a priority on providing
safe services to those with disabilities, and we are passionate about
doing it. We train our staff annually on the carriage of persons with
disabilities. All of our decisions are based on safety, and the Pilot
In Command (PIC) has the final say. The following is an excerpt from
our Operations Manual concerning the carriage of handicapped
passengers:
Handicapped persons capable of enplaning and deplaning
unassisted will have no restrictions in seating, provided it is
quite clear that they are capable of exiting the aircraft
expeditiously in the event of an emergency as determined by the
PIC.
Handicapped persons incapable of enplaning or deplaning
unassisted on company aircraft are required to be accompanied
by a responsible person capable of aiding in case of emergency.
If only one handicapped person is to be carried on a full
aircraft, he or she should be placed on the inside seat, not
next to an exit, when the aircraft configuration allows. Dakota
Rotors pilots are authorized and encouraged to assist our
guests in any way that the pilot-in-command deems safe and
reasonable.
If two handicapped persons are to be carried on a full
aircraft, they shall be placed on inside seats, not next to an
exit, when the aircraft configuration allows. In this case, it
will be necessary to designate the remaining passengers to
assist in an emergency.
NOTE: The pilot will be responsible for the evacuation of the
handicapped persons in the event of an emergency. However, it
is highly unlikely that he could assist more than two
handicapped persons expeditiously. Also, it may be that the
pilot himself is unable to assist. Except for extreme emergency
situations, there will never be more than two handicapped
persons carried on a single flight. In addition, there must
always be at least one other adult capable of assisting in the
event of an emergency.
In the event multiple handicapped persons come to us for this
experience, we will make accommodations up to and including
extra aircraft to make sure all are able to share the
experience.
In the three years we have owned the companies, we have a 100%
success rate with carriage. We have not had to turn anyone away who
wished to enjoy the experience. In my entire 13 years of operating air
tours, I have only had to turn away one couple. This was a mental
condition, and the decision to turn them away came after the lady beat
me with her cane. The story is pretty funny!
On a more serious note, we routinely carry individuals, mostly
children, who are considered to be on the spectrum. This encompasses a
wide variety of diagnoses. It has been relayed to us on multiple
occasions that aerial visitation is the only option for them due to the
nature of the disorders.
We exert every effort to safely transport all passengers who come
to us. In my past experience with other air tour operators, this was
always the approach. I once loaded an aircraft with a forklift in order
to provide our experience. While certainly an extreme example, it does
highlight our passion for providing equal access to our experiences.
This issue is a hot button with me personally. Having transported
hundreds personally in my flying career, I can tell you the joy and
enrichment the experience brings is unmatched. We will always do
everything we can to safely provide this experience to all.
Question 4. Are there uniform standards across the air tour
industry to provide accessibility? Or are decisions left to individual
operators?
Answer. For the most part, outside of Federal Regulation that
controls the carriage of passengers with disabilities, operators
generally form their own approach. However, that approach is often
uniform, as tour operators commonly share best practice with each
other. This happens through personal contact, the Tour Operators
Working Group and through safety associations such as TOPS. My policies
for example, are based on concepts learned working for two large
operators prior to the purchase of my own companies. Based on the
building block approach, best practices from previous operations are
incorporated into mine.
Question 5. Please provide specific quantitative data for the
number of flights your business has conducted over each individual
national park unit, including whether those flights would be subject to
an ATMP developed or in development under the National Park Air Tour
Management Act or are not subject to any ATMP.
Answer. The only parks we operate in are subject to already
developed ATMP's. Flights over the park units represent about 80% of
tour total flights completed. These are counted when an aircraft
completes a flight on a route inside the boundaries of a park unit and
is not representative of the number of passengers. Below is the direct
data for overflights of the individual parks we are authorized to
operate in for 2021, 2022 and 2023:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4286.002
.epsQuestion 6. What is the average cost for an individual air tour
over a national park unit at your business?
Answer. We have multiple choices that we offer to the flying
public. We routinely vary pricing with discounts and other promotional
programs. Additionally, each park unit we fly in is different. For
Mount Rushmore, our tours range from 120.00 to 265.00 with an average
price of 170.00. For Badlands National Park, the tours range from 59.00
to 270.00 for an average of 153.00. The mix of tours can vary greatly
based on time of year and demographics. While the average cost of the
tours is reflected above, the average passenger spend is significantly
higher. These average costs do not reflect actual sales or revenue
generated. Prices are per person.
Question 7. Who manufactured each of the helicopters in your fleet?
Do any of your helicopters currently utilize quiet technologies?
Answer. We fly a diverse fleet of aircraft manufactured by Bell and
Robinson. These aircraft are not listed or were not tested for
inclusion in the list of QT aircraft. While our airframes are not on
the list, it is possible that they could qualify if the proper testing
had been accomplished. The difference between aircraft that are not QT
and those that are, is roughly an average of 3 db, an almost negligible
number.
Sound signature is always on our mind. We as a company are always
looking for ways to reduce sound whether it be technology, routes or
altitudes. We have completely altered or eliminated routes and route
segments in order to address community concerns.
We are actively looking into and watching emerging technology for
opportunities to pursue newer vehicles that promise significant noise
reduction. The availability of these aircraft commercially is still a
ways into the future. By eliminating my ability to fly today, the
potential for dramatically reduced sound signature vehicles in the
future is also eliminated.
If grant money was available for assisting with the acquisition of
current QT aircraft, we would absolutely take advantage of that. To
date, we know of no programs available that could provide assistance.
The cost of those aircraft in the current market ranges from 2-4
million dollars each, which is quite a burden for small operators like
us.
Question 8. Did your company provide comments to any ATMPs during
their public comment period? Did you company provide any input through
a trade organization? Did your company attempt to provide any
additional input to the agencies outside the public comment
opportunities? If so, please describe that input.
Answer. We provided extensive comment during the public comment
periods. We also provided comment through Helicopter Association
International. We attempted on several occasions to open dialog with
the FAA and the NPS on these plans as soon as they were first released
to the public in September 2022. I had a phone call with Mount Rushmore
staff regarding some of the claims in the scoping letter that were
quite surprising to read. The call resulted in confirming our concerns
that the entire ATMP process was being driven on a timeline.
There were two claims in the first document made available to the
public. Native American spiritual sites could be impacted, and
interpretive activities at the park could be impacted. When we inquired
for details so that we could take immediate action to reduce impact, it
became clear that there were no actual accounts of disturbance. In
fact, I was informed that information regarding Native Spiritual sites
was ``not public knowledge'', and that Mt Rushmore staff didn't even
know where they were. I was given zero documentation of any complaints.
Conversation with the local FSDO was even more tight lipped. They
simply claimed that there had not been any significant interaction.
Conversation with now retired Keith Lusk of the FAA was also fruitless
in providing answers or opening communications on the issue.
This overinflation of impact is further debunked during our annual
get together with senior park staff at our facility. Since we have
taken ownership, we have not received a single complaint from either
park unit in any way shape or form. The Chief Ranger at Mt. Rushmore
has consistently reported that things were going great, and that we
were doing a great job adhering to previously agreed routes and
altitudes.
Prior to our taking ownership of the companies in 2021, there were
reportedly efforts to enter into a Voluntary Agreement for Mt Rushmore.
Those efforts were abruptly ended by the NPS in 2019. This is based on
information provided to us, but we do not have direct documentation of
what the efforts actually were, or what actually killed the agreement.
It is our belief that the agreement efforts ended once the lawsuit
became a possibility. We also believe that the lawsuit was somewhat of
an inside job, with the Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility having members that are persons who worked on the
ATMP's. It would explain the abrupt cessation of agreement talks, as
the NPS made a determination to follow an alternate course of action.
This of course, is their right to do so, but it illustrates the
secretive nature of many government functions. The operators were left
out of the discussion.
Voluntary Agreements provide the best opportunity to achieve park
goals while allowing private enterprise to provide alternative park
experiences that are ultra-low impact. In the case of Mt Rushmore, the
EA prepared to justify their actions incorrectly cited impacts to
wilderness character of surrounding areas. Without justification, they
used potential impacts outside of the ATMP area to substantiate impact
claims. They neglected to note that by compressing air traffic into the
very narrow corridor outside of the boundary, it places all air traffic
into the wilderness area. A voluntary agreement would allow for parties
to work together to manage those impacts and would have given the USFS
a seat at the table as well.
It is important to note that while we vigorously oppose the process
and methods by which these ATMPS's were developed, we wholeheartedly
support the ATMP as a concept. We support the Voluntary Agreement as
well, as it provides the best for both parties. Responsible operators
should be actively involved in seeking ways to lessen the sounds
produced by aerial tours. We prove this out repeatedly in the
communities in which we operate. In the past year we have altered
entire product offerings in response to community input.
In fact, We have a great working relationship with Yellowstone
National Park and Teton National Park. We do not fly aerial tours
inside either park, or would we ever seek to do so. All parks are NOT
equal. I have provided both Yellowstone and Teton my satellite tracking
information, so they always know where we are. There are flights that
we take into the park, such as photo flights and transportation
flights. Those types of flights are not affected by the ATMP process. I
turn in a flight plan before we go and stick to it as close as
possible. This transparency is not required, but we do it as assurance
to those park units that we operate responsibly. We are conscientious
and responsible operators.
Air tour management plans were never intended to be elimination
plans. The removal of 9,000 flights represents significant overreach
without justification as required by NPATMA.
Question 9. Do you or any individuals from your company participate
in the National Park Overflights Advisory Group?
Answer. We attend meetings, but do not currently have anyone with a
seat on the advisory group. When the next seat opens up, we plan to try
and have a seat at the table. I strongly believe NPOAG should have been
involved in the development of the plans. The expertise is at the
table, and representatives from stakeholders is well represented. The
NPS claims that NPOAG was involved, but that is simply untrue.
Development of the plans were carried out behind closed doors, and
NPOAG was only briefed--not included in the development of the plans.
For the entire process, where NPATMA required that stakeholders be
included in the development of the plans, they were not, contrary to
what the NPS is representing.
We believe as Congress did, that NPOAG was a necessary tool for
advising on air tour issues. The group itself is heavily tilted to the
environmental side, as the FAA representatives were not FAA aviation or
safety people. Regardless, the affected entities are all at the table
with NPOAG, and the group could have been instrumental in protecting
park resources and responsible development and safety of air commerce.
NPOAG should absolutely be a part of the solutions, not simply a group
of people gathered to be advised on what has already occurred.
Question 10. Please list any specific safety concerns you or your
company have with individual ATMPs. How would you recommend that the
agencies address those concerns while maintaining the level of resource
protection described in the plan?
Answer. We have several safety concerns with respect to the plans
themselves and the development of the plans. As required by NPATMA, the
FAA is charged with being the lead agency in the development of the
ATMP's. We are gravely concerned that the FAA has taken a backseat to
the NPS in the development of these plans, leaving key details to those
without the technical expertise to provide valuable input to protect
the safety of air commerce. This represents a danger to the flying
public and the communities in the areas affected by these ATMP's.
Our main safety concern is the compression of air tour traffic into
a very small corridor outside the eastern boundary of Mt. Rushmore. As
noted in earlier answers to the questions regarding numbers of flights,
the numbers are significant. While I do not have the numbers of flight
undertaken in this corridor by our competitor, or from other aviation
interests, when you add the up to 5300 flights we are authorized to
take, the potential for conflict is highly elevated. In 2021 and 2022,
we flew to within 100 flights of our total IOA. With the current flight
paths inside the ATMP, deconfliction happens automatically. The
potential doubling of flights taking place outside the ATMP represents
a significant elevation of risk.
When we evaluate this risk as required by our SMS, the levels of
risk that are unable to be mitigated could force us into a choice of
ending flights or dramatically reduce flights. This represents a highly
prejudicial and discriminatory situation. We do not take safety issues
lightly and will go out of business before we accept such high-risk
levels.
Where is the FAA on this issue? We believe based on conversations
with the FSDO after the plan was released, that it was certainly
brought up to FAA environmental and NPS. They indicated it was a
significant safety issue and agreed with my position. It was
deliberately ignored, and this represents a significant dereliction of
duty in our opinion. Even though we are small operators, our SMS
demands risks be assessed and mitigated to as low a level as possible.
Certainly, the FAA would be under a similar process with their SMS
process. We can find no evidence this was ever considered or performed.
In all of the documents produced for Mt Rushmore and Badlands, safety
was completely ignored.
With respect to the level of ``resource protection described in the
plan'', the ATMP actually increases the impact to surrounding
wilderness and communities by eliminating viable, low impact route
opportunities that could serve to protect everyone. The ATMP
incorrectly described the wilderness character of the surrounding area,
and yet the plan itself represents increased risk and increased impacts
to those areas. The plans should have had high quality scientific data
prepared and analyzed to determine real impacts.
Another significant concern we have had during this process is the
number of last-minute surprises with respect to how the plans were
released to the public. We received no notice, outside of the Federal
Register. This placed us in a position that required a lot of attention
during very busy operational times. This was an undue burden placed on
us, and in our opinion compromised safety due to the time it took away
from operational oversight.
Although not related to safety, but certainly related to risk is
the amount of business that was affected as a result of media reporting
of the ATMP's. We estimate up to $500,000 of impact to us directly as a
result of the media headlines surrounding the ATMP. We are still
fielding calls daily asking if we are still operating. The public is
asking if we are still flying because the perception is that we've
already been shut down. This is just a window into the economic impact
that was not evaluated or considered in these plans.
Workforce development will take a big hit with the removal of our
companies from the air tour landscape. We create pilots and mechanics.
The pilots that will serve fighting fires and flying air ambulance
operations start with us. In our current environment, the industry is
experiencing a shortage of qualified, experienced pilots. We take
qualified pilots, give them top shelf training and experience, and
prepare them for those future positions. The loss of up to 12 pilots
per year that we are able to equip will absolutely reverberate across
the industry and have a lasting impact as it compounds year after year.
It is vital to maintain aerial tours as a means of workforce
development to prepare tomorrows aviators. While it is overly dramatic
to say that the removal of my companies from the landscape will cost
lives and property, there is truth in that statement. Without us, there
are less air ambulance pilots and less aerial firefighting pilots.
Helicopters are hugely beneficial to society in countless ways, and
workforce development pipelines are a major concern and should be a top
priority.
The helicopter industry in the past 7 years had also been key to
supplying pilots transitioning to Part 121 Air Carriers (Airlines).
While this does present challenges to the helicopter industry, it has
been a key method by which airlines are able to quickly add crew
members. Reducing our ability to provide pilot experience also reduces
the capacity for Part 121 carriers to tap into a pool of pilots who
could transition and fill those roles.
Lastly, another risk item is the significant economic impact that
has gone without analysis in these plans. The real risk of losing
everything I have lawfully and diligently worked for is a reality.
During the public meetings, it was said by FAA Environmental and NPS
staff that companies could simply repurpose their aircraft and perform
other missions. This represents a great example of the lack of
expertise at the table in the development of these plans. In order to
re-tool, re-train and equip the company to undertake other missions, a
significant investment is required. Are there grant programs available
for this type of re-tool? What resources are available to companies
like mine to remain viable and bridge the gap between mission
capability as the government unjustly takes away my ability to operate?
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much, Mr. Schlaefli. Now I am
going to recognize Members for 5 minutes for their questions. I
go first to Mr. Troy Nehls from Texas.
Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wells, thank you for being here. And all the veterans
in the room, I appreciate you. I don't know if these ATMPs, if
they thought about talking to the DAV or Americans with
Disabilities.
The gentlemen, Mr. Schlaefli and then Mr. Tomlin, thank you
for providing the American people and anyone else visiting this
great country an opportunity to see our nation's monuments.
And flying over the Grand Canyon, I have been to Las Vegas
before, I have been sitting out there at the pool, at the ARIA,
and I see the helicopters flying around there. You can't even
hear the damn thing unless you are looking up and you can see
it. You can't hear it, and they are flying around. So, I really
have problems with what our government, and it is Congress and
it is this Administration, what they are doing in the name of
either social justice or environmental justice. I think it is
very, very disturbing.
Mr. Slater, does the Navajo Nation receive any monies from
these air tour operators, any money?
Mr. Slater. No, sir.
Mr. Nehls. OK, so they don't receive any money. I think
that is really what this comes down to. I am looking in your
written testimony, and you mentioned it speaking just a few
minutes ago about economic opportunities for tribal members.
And it is written here: ``Even assuming consultation is
adequate, an essential aspect of securing the Navajo Nation's
support for air tours is the firm belief that tribal members
should have the opportunity to benefit economically from such
activities.'' You were talking about we don't get any money, we
don't get this, we don't get that.
It continues to say, ``Engaging local Navajo residents in
the economic aspects of air tours could also remedy some of the
potential risks of air tours, as well as enhance the experience
for the tours.'' So, what did you really mean by that?
Mr. Slater. An example would be, sir, that there might be
an area where, if you fly too close, say to a cliff dwelling,
that it could reverberate and impact the dwelling. It would
fall apart. It would desecrate something that is very sacred to
us. But if an air tour operator coordinated with an on-the-
ground tour operator, they could visit it on the ground without
disturbing it.
Mr. Nehls. You don't think these air tour operators
understand that? You don't think they do risk assessments every
time they get up into an aircraft and make sure that they
provide that visitor a safe experience, a quality experience? I
don't think they are out there to say, hey, we are going to try
to damage something today, or place anybody at risk.
Mr. Slater. I think it is intent versus impact. You are
always assessing the safety of the aircraft and the experience,
and not necessarily the ground impacts.
Mr. Nehls. I can see you are a little bit frustrated with
the military, with sonic booms and affecting all these types of
different wildlife, all that other stuff. But then I kind of
look, and this is on your website, ``Casino, a center point of
community.'' I kind of go look at this. There are four casinos
in the Navajo Nation, started building them in 2008.
And in here it says the Fire Rock Casino was the first of
the four casinos built in 2008. ``Surrounded by the beautiful
Red Rock State Park on historic Route 66, Fire Rock Casino
provides a picturesque view that is a must see for tourists and
locals alike. Stunning art and architecture combined to both
symbolize and showcase the rich history of the Navajo people,
while providing a gaming experience unlike anywhere else.''
So, it appears to me that when you build these beautiful
casinos, and they are on acres, and there is oil in asphalt,
and there is noise in casinos, ding, ding, ding, hitting the
grand prize, big, big lights outside because you have to
attract people from everywhere. Was the environment really
considered when you built the casinos and that beautiful view
from the Red Rock State Park? What do you think about that?
Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Nehls. This is my time. I have 45 seconds left.
Please answer that.
Mr. Slater. Thank you, Mr. Nehls.
Ms. Stansbury. This is very----
Mr. Slater. The land is Federal land that that is located
on.
Dr. Gosar. Can you hold for a second?
Mr. Slater. Oh, I am sorry, Mr. Gosar.
Dr. Gosar. A parliamentary----
Ms. Stansbury. I would like to know what this has to do
with this----
Mr. Nehls. This is my 30 seconds. You can talk about
anything else. I am----
Ms. Stansbury. Excuse me, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Nehls. I ask to get my 30 seconds back.
Dr. Gosar. Hold on.
Ms. Stansbury. I would ask that our fellow Congressman show
appropriate decorum to an elected tribal official who has, at
his own expense, come to testify before Congress to share his
perspective. Thank you.
Dr. Gosar. I acknowledge that. I think the inquiry is still
going fine. I think Mr. Slater can hold his own. Thank you.
Mr. Slater. Thank you very much, Ranking----
Mr. Nehls. Mr. Slater, though, you could see my concern. I
am thinking to myself we build casinos that take acres of land,
and you talk on the website, talking about the beautiful views.
So, now I am impacted.
You want to say these guys flying at a couple of hundred
feet above there are impacting all of this. Was any
consideration taken to the casinos? They weren't because they
generate revenue, lots of it. So, we will forget about the
environmental impact.
But you are a little upset----
Mr. Slater. But there was an environmental----
Mr. Nehls [continuing]. Because the air tours, you are not
profiting from it. Maybe the air tour guys, if you give them a
little piece of the pie, the environment won't matter anymore.
Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, I would like----
Mr. Nehls. With that, I yield back. I have to go to another
hearing.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you. The gentleman from Hawaii is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Case. Mr. Slater, do you want to respond for 30 seconds
to that?
Mr. Slater. If you would allow me to, yes, thank you.
Mr. Case. Yes, please.
Mr. Slater. I very much appreciate the Federal Government
giving us our land back, but it is Federal land, an
environmental impact statement, I think environmental
assessment, was conducted for the construction of the Fire Rock
Casino. And I would like to thank Mr. Nehls for advertising it.
It is a fantastic property in New Mexico, right along I-40.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Slater. But it is right next to land that was taken
from us to construct the Santa Fe Railroad right there. So,
there are a tremendous amount of adverse impacts to our
communities right along there, and that is a different type of
adverse impact from a taking by the Federal Government of
Native lands. And it is very similar to this.
Mr. Case. OK, I am going to reclaim my time, because I want
to get back to the subject of the hearing.
Mr. Slater. Thank you, Mr. Case.
Mr. Case. Mr. Tomlin, you operate primarily in the Grand
Canyon, Lake Mead area, is that right?
Mr. Tomlin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Case. OK. That is not the subject of this process, is
it? You have your own separate law that governs air tour
management in the Grand Canyon.
Mr. Tomlin. Grand Canyon has an existing ATMP.
Mr. Case. Right, but it is a separate law. We are not
talking about the current process. You are not impacted at all
by the process that is the subject of this hearing, correct?
Mr. Tomlin. No, I disagree. We have overflight IOA at least
half a dozen parks, all surrounding the Southwest.
Mr. Case. OK, that is what I am trying to get at, but your
primary focus, your primary business interest is the Grand
Canyon, right?
Mr. Tomlin. I am concerned about every park we overfly in.
Mr. Case. I am just asking you for a priority. You are
primarily involved in the Grand Canyon, right?
Mr. Tomlin. We do most of the volume of our business in the
Grand Canyon.
Mr. Case. OK, correct. And you have been operating under an
Air Tour Management Plan there for a long time.
Mr. Tomlin. Yes.
Mr. Case. And there are stresses and strains in that
relationship, right? But it is operating. The ATMP for the
Grand Canyon is operating. It is accommodating interests, it is
providing for a balancing of those interests. Is that correct?
Mr. Tomlin. Yes, the process for the Grand Canyon involved
multiple stakeholders. A perfect example of one of the
surrounding parks is the voluntary agreement we have in place
in Glen Canyon. That is where we had Navajo interests, that is
where we had operators like ourselves. That is where we had all
ground-based interests, environmental interests show up at
that, and we were able to 100 percent sign a document for a
voluntary agreement.
Mr. Case. And reclaiming my time, the voluntary agreement
is an option, right?
Mr. Tomlin. Yes.
Mr. Case. Which has been realized in some of these ATMP
situations. Correct?
OK, are you subject to the Americans for Disabilities Act?
Mr. Tomlin. I am not familiar with the laws associated with
that right now.
Mr. Case. This is a basic, fundamental law that requires
businesses offering public accommodations to provide reasonable
accommodations.
Mr. Tomlin. Yes, we do.
Mr. Case. So, you are subject to the ADA. What reasonable
accommodations have you provided for disabled people to fly on
your helicopters? Because I am pretty familiar with the
helicopter industry in Hawaii at this point. They make
fundamentally no reasonable accommodation. One could argue that
they are actually in violation of the law. Yet, you are saying
that you are open for business. Are you open for business? If I
go on your advertising, does it say, ``This is how we are going
to take care of people with disabilities?''
Mr. Tomlin. Everybody with disabilities is case by case.
Mr. Case. How do they get on your helicopters? Let's say I
show up at your shop in a wheelchair. How do I get on your
helicopter?
Mr. Tomlin. Yes. One of the most extreme cases----
Mr. Case. Do you have something there, a lift to get them
up there?
Mr. Tomlin. Our two uncles with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy
couldn't move any part of their body, and we had the means to
put them in our helicopters, fly them safely, and our
airplanes, and take them on tours of the Grand Canyon.
Mr. Case. That was with prior announcement, right? I mean,
you knew they were coming. But what if somebody just shows up
and says, ``I would like to take a ride?''
Mr. Tomlin. Oh, we have wheelchairs, we have ramp access,
we have ramps that actually lift and position them to the exact
boarding areas where they are seated. We have specific seats
picked out on aircraft for Americans with disabilities.
Mr. Case. I appreciate that, by the way. That is the right
answer.
Do you have any figures on exactly what percentage actually
do take advantage of your reasonable accommodations?
Mr. Tomlin. I don't have exact figures, but----
Mr. Case. Would it be 5 percent, 10 percent, 1 percent?
What is it? It is not the majority, is it?
Mr. Tomlin. It is not the majority, no, but it is important
to meet their needs.
Mr. Case. OK, and do you have a figure on how many people
that are ``elderly'' or young are on your helicopters every
year, or veterans, for that matter?
Mr. Tomlin. A lot of people with disabilities don't even
declare their disability until they show up. And we have to
make accommodations to make sure their boarding process and
tour goes smoothly, yes.
Mr. Case. OK. And then, Mr. Schlaefli, just to be clear,
you are not prohibited from flying outside of the Air Tour
Management Plan area, right? You can fly around Mount Rushmore
if you want. Probably get pretty good visibility. Is that
right?
Mr. Schlaefli. We are not prohibited from flying outside of
the half mile.
Mr. Case. OK, thank you.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman and I recognize the
gentleman from Montana.
Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate
you holding this very important hearing today.
The impact of President Biden's recent decision to
effectively eliminate air tours over our national parks has
significant implications for Montana. Montana's vast national
parks attract millions of visitors seeking to experience the
breathtaking scenery, and air tours are crucial alternatives
for those unable to partake in extensive hikes or looking to
escape the growing crowds, and provide it with little or no
impact on the park.
In 2022 alone, Montana national parks witnessed a massive
visitor surge contributing to the 15 million increase in
recreation visits nationwide compared to 2021. The overcrowding
concerns are real, as has been thoroughly discussed by this
Committee. Air tours can serve as a practical solution,
allowing individuals, including the elderly and those with
physical limitations, to connect with parks in ways otherwise
unattainable.
The recent rush by the FAA and the NPS to implement Air
Tour Management Plans after the 2020 decision by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for D.C. has raised concerns specific to Montana and
its national parks. The state's air tour operators, who have
been excluded from the ATMP development process, face economic
challenges as these plans either eliminate or drastically limit
tours over national parks. This jeopardizes local small
businesses, and has had a ripple effect on emergency services
that air tour operators traditionally provide, as we saw during
the Maui fires. As Montana and other states across the West
grapple with these challenges, we must take swift action to
address the flaws in the ATMP process and consider the unique
economic and accessibility aspects specific to our states.
I applaud Congressman Gosar and the Transportation
Committee for including a requirement for FAA and NPS to
consult with NPOAG on ATMPs in the recent FAA reauthorization.
It is a significant first step to remedying this pending issue.
Mr. Schlaefli, I would like to start with you. You
mentioned a projected $5.4 million reduction in revenue for
your companies due to this ruling. Can you elaborate on the
potential job losses that might result in this significant drop
in revenue?
Mr. Schlaefli. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I
can.
It is not simply just the revenue loss. It would be the
loss of our 30 employees. But more importantly, air tours
provide a vital piece of the pipeline for pilot development and
the creation of pilots and mechanics for other sectors of the
industry. And this is one of the biggest impacts that has been
overlooked and not discussed in any of these plans, and that
ends up being 10 to 15 pilots per year that would be removed
from this opportunity to move forward in their careers.
Mr. Rosendale. So, I am guessing that a lot of these tours
are conducted seasonally. You have peaks and valleys in your
traffic that comes through. So, what would these pilots be
doing otherwise, if they are not seasonally working with you?
Mr. Schlaefli. Yes, our pilots do a variety of things. We
actually employ several year-round, and have multiple pilots
that return to us every year, and they do a variety of things
in their off season.
Mr. Rosendale. But I would imagine, as I was making
reference to, they are helping medical facilities and doing
life flights, and things like that.
Mr. Schlaefli. Some of my pilots do those things, some take
on other jobs. There are a variety of things to kind of bridge
the gap between when we are busy and when we are not.
Mr. Rosendale. Very good. In your testimony you highlight
the absence of safety considerations in the documentation
justifying the Air Tour Management Plan. Why do you believe the
FAA overlooked this crucial factor?
And what implications does this have for the safety of air
tour operations over national parks?
Mr. Schlaefli. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.
Safety was not to be found in any of the documentation that was
produced by the National Park Service. The FAA has completely
ignored safety as a factor in the development, and particularly
my ATMPs.
Congressman Case, you asked the question about outside the
half-mile boundary, and we could fly outside the half-mile
boundary. My competition, the other operator in the area, flies
out there. We are now taking air traffic and, by necessity,
compressing it into a smaller area, elevating the risks to the
public and to the park system.
Mr. Rosendale. Very good, and I have enough time for just
one more question.
Mr. Tomlin, I would like to go to you. Your testimony
highlights your company's extensive public service work.
Approximately how many of your flights each year are dedicated
to providing these crucial public services?
And can you share some of the examples of the impact your
services have had on the communities that you serve?
Mr. Tomlin. Thank you for the question, Representative.
Having the backbone of aviation tourism allows us, as Mr.
Schlaefli was saying, to train, equip, and send a high-caliber
talent on some of these missions. In some of the ones what we
do is national park search and rescue. We operate in Grand
Canyon, Sequoia Kings National Park. So, if you break your leg
down there, it is our helicopter coming to pick you up, as well
as Forest Service firefighting, we have been all over many
states this year fighting fires.
We got into aviation cargo, as well, during the vaccine
dissemination of 2020. They needed extra support, and we were
flying vaccines all over the Midwest. And we did this off of
air tour pilots that we were able to continue to train and
offer more career enhancements to provide some of these public
services. And a lot of that public service work isn't year-
round.
Mr. Rosendale. Thank you so much.
And Mr. Chair, I would yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. The gentlewoman from New
Mexico, Ms. Stansbury, is recognized for five.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Councilman Slater, welcome to Washington, DC. We are
grateful that you were able to travel here.
And Commander Wells and the proud Marines sitting behind
you, and all of the veterans who are listening in, thank you
for your service, and thank you for bringing veterans' issues
to the table today.
Just 2 weeks ago, we had a hearing on a bipartisan veterans
bill that myself and Representative Ciscomani have introduced
to actually increase access for our veterans and disabled
individuals in our community to our national parks. So, this is
a very pertinent issue, and I really appreciate the perspective
that you brought.
And Mr. Tomlin and Mr. Schlaefli, I grew up in small
businesses, so I understand that when the government does
things that impact our businesses it can have devastating
impacts, especially for our small and local businesses. So, I
am very sensitive to that, and I do appreciate some of the
solutions and feedback that you brought here today.
To me, listening to this conversation, it feels like a lot
of the critique has been about the process by which the Federal
Government, and specifically the National Park Service, engaged
with communities of interest, whether it is tribal communities
and the way in which they have done consultation, whether it is
with different stakeholder groups like veterans, or whether it
is the actual operators themselves, the way in which those
management plans have been socialized with the community, the
concerns have been listened to, and I get it. The Federal
Government is a beast. And sometimes the process by which our
agencies do things don't make a lot of sense to folks on the
ground.
And I think one of the things that is important to bring
into this hearing is we heard this morning from the Director,
who testified that a number of these management plans are still
in the process of being developed. So, there is still an active
comment period. So, the information that you are bringing here
today, we are fortunate we are in the people's house, so you
guys are providing your public comment here, but I really
encourage everyone to also submit public comment into the
official record to the National Park Service because, as they
develop those management plans, that feedback that you provide
through the formal comment process ultimately can be adopted
into those plans. It is an onerous process, I know, for
individual tribes to engage in, and operators, but I think it
is important.
But I do want to take a moment to go back to the
conversation that was had about the impacts in our communities.
And Councilman Slater, I am really glad that you are here, and
I really appreciated the stories that you shared from the
communities that you represent on the ground. I think you are
uniquely positioned because you are an elected tribal official,
you are from the communities, and you are also in the aviation
business.
And I actually was born and grew up partly in San Juan
County, in Navajo country. And I think for folks that are not
familiar with some of these communities when you talk about the
impacts to individuals living out near these huge, open spaces,
these are ancestral lands, these are people's family lands.
They have their livestock there and their ceremonies being
conducted, religious ceremonies. So, this isn't about sitting
in the ARIA in Las Vegas and not being bothered by a helicopter
flying over while you are drinking a cocktail. This is about
Indigenous people who have lived on these lands for thousands
of years who suddenly have air traffic in their backyard while
they are conducting religious ceremonies. It is about respect.
It is about listening. It is about consultation.
I understand that this change in operation will have
impacts to operators, but these are public lands. These are
Indigenous lands, and we do have to listen to our communities
because it is not just about tourism and whatever you want to
do on somebody else's lands or over their sacred sites. This is
about, as Americans, having respect for each other. So, I think
it is really important that you have brought those stories to
this space, and I really honor those stories, and I appreciate
that the National Park Service is undertaking that.
For those of us who have been fortunate enough in our lives
to do a flyover, the only one I have ever done I went to Denali
National Park many years ago and had the opportunity. Man,
those planes fly in and out of Talkeetna all day long, and I
can see how they would have massive impacts on communities. But
they are an economic engine within those communities.
But Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could just take a moment,
since this is the opportunity for our folks to publicly, the
three areas that we heard from this morning, I wonder if you
could each just very quickly go down the line and say, ``What
do you think the National Park Service needs to hear from
today's hearing as they are developing these management
plans?'' Are you OK with that?
Dr. Gosar. Go ahead.
Ms. Stansbury. Commander Wells, would you please share.
Mr. Wells. Sure. You need to talk to us. They need to talk
to the operators, they need to talk to the tribes, they need to
talk to the veterans. You need to get the VA on your Committee,
OK? Or not your Committee, but the advisory group. You need to
think big picture, and all the people who are going to be
affected, including the veterans.
The problem is we write plans, and so many of them have
been adopted, and they usually go on a shelf somewhere and
gather dust until somebody says, oh, there was a violation, I
don't like them, we can do this. These plans need to be
vibrant. They need to be continuously reviewed, continuously
updated, and get the input of everybody at this table and other
groups besides.
Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Tomlin?
Mr. Tomlin. Thank you, Ranking Member. Those are great
questions, and that would be the goal of all of us today.
No. 1, I would say include NPOAG. Let's not redo what has
already been out there that has multiple stakeholders there to
be an advisory for each one of those parks.
No. 2, every park should describe the targets it is trying
to hit. If we are trying to mitigate environmental impact to
animals, or visitor experience, or what is that like, we are
really good at working with those concerns or creating
curfews--like we do with Navajo Nation, we don't fly on certain
spiritual days. And we do also give a portion of the ticket
sales and revenue to the Navajo Tribe, as well, for our
landings that we do out there and the tours we bring to
Antelope Canyon.
And then No. 3 is just bringing all the stakeholders
together. There are so many interests that are different in
every single park. That process needs to happen. It has been
one way the whole time. Thank you.
Mr. Slater. Thank you very much. I would say engage and
respect tribes because no one else is going to look out for us
unless we assert ourselves. And I just think about all the
smaller tribes out there who don't have the resources of the
Navajo Nation. When I talk about scientific and technical
resources, FAA and the National Park Service need to assist
tribes in understanding that in a level that their people will
understand and our people will understand on Navajo.
And I agree with quite a good deal with what Mr. Tomlin
said in engaging NPOAG. We have not had full representation for
Native American interests on NPOAG, and FAA and NPS need to
look at why we are not getting those two seats filled. It has
been me and then my predecessor, Mr. Martin Begaye. It is a
bigger conversation, but if you only have one guy representing
all tribes, you are not going to have that same meaningful
consultation or advisement. Thank you.
Mr. Schlaefli. And thank you, Ranking Member, for that
question. I am going to echo some of the things that have
already been said. But for me, personally, engagement is
important, and I will give you a couple of examples.
We, as an operator, are very responsive to our community,
very responsive. We have been very responsive to our individual
park units. In fact, we have the Park Superintendent and/or the
Chief Ranger out every year to speak to our pilots about the
importance of these parks. And during that time, we also use it
to go back and forth on what is important and things of that
nature. And I have zero complaints from them ever.
And there is no collaboration. It is all being done from a
distance in kind of a one-step process. Everything is being
applied the same. Glacier National Park is not the same as
Mount Rushmore. Mount Rushmore has a parking garage as its
central piece of its infrastructure, and they should be treated
different.
So, collaboration, open conversation between all the
agencies. We are really, really good at coming up with creative
solutions to minimize impacts.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Gosar. Good questions.
The gentleman from South Dakota, Mr. Dusty Johnson, is
recognized.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Ranking Member.
Mr. Schlaefli, let's just pick right up where you left off
with concerns about the one-touch consultation process. I mean,
if you and I were going to design a better process of
engagement, what would that look like?
Mr. Schlaefli. That would be bringing all of the
stakeholders together in the development of the plans. And that
is actually required by NPATMA, the word ``development'' is
emphasized, and that did not occur.
I think everybody having input so that their concerns and
impacts can be evaluated, and we can react to those, and create
a system where everybody gets what they need.
Mr. Johnson. So, when you talked about every year having
somebody from the parks come talk to your pilots, who has
generally come out?
Mr. Schlaefli. Generally, the Chief Ranger of Mount
Rushmore would come out and do this for us every year.
Mr. Johnson. See, to me, that is remarkable. It sounds like
exactly the kind of thing we would want to have happen, people
with boots on the ground, an executive, a chief ranger
obviously knows what they are talking about, coming to talk to
your folks just kind of neighbor to neighbor, you guys could
figure out the right way to operate.
Tell me a little bit more about what that would look like.
A Chief Ranger would come out, your pilots would be gathered
together. What would the Chief Ranger share?
Mr. Schlaefli. Yes, we usually have to provide food to make
sure everybody showed up.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Schlaefli. But other than that, the Chief Ranger would
come out, they would give a brief presentation on history,
which is important. We like our people giving accurate
information to the public when they are flying. And then they
would go through and talk about points in the park, things to
avoid, and we would talk operationally about the things we were
doing and if there was anything that needed to be adjusted.
Mr. Johnson. I think you made some allusion to the fact
that, gosh, it is not like the Chief Ranger shows up and has
this huge list of complaints about how we are degrading the
experience for other visitors. And did I hear that right?
Mr. Schlaefli. That is correct. In fact, I actually made a
call on several occasions over to the park when the initial
scoping letter came out in September 2022. There were comments
in there about disruption of interpretive activities, among
other things. And I immediately made the phone call. I am,
like, ``What are we disturbing, so that I can make that
change?'' Of course, I didn't get any information. I don't
think there was any to give. But we have yet to have a single
complaint from Mount Rushmore since we took over operations.
Mr. Johnson. Is the experience with the Badlands National
Park a lot different?
Mr. Schlaefli. I would say it is not different. In fact, we
have had a really good working relationship with the folks on
the ground. In fact, Badlands staff often comes over to the
heliport and says, ``Hey, we are missing a dog, we are missing
a hiker, can you go look for them?'' And we always do that,
free of charge.
Mr. Johnson. And I am not aware of the exact management
agreement in place today, but I know at different times the
south unit has been managed by some Native American leadership.
Do you take flights over the south unit at all?
Mr. Schlaefli. We do not. We are just on that northern
unit, and a very, very small part of that northern unit.
Mr. Johnson. OK. So, we have talked a lot about both the
economics and sort of the lost memories. I will admit to
feeling a little foolish that I never thought about the pilot
and maintainer pipeline until you brought it up.
Do you have actual examples of someone who would have
started and honed their craft with you, and then went on to do
other things?
Mr. Schlaefli. Yes, absolutely. We had a long-time pilot by
the name of Chris Darling, who worked for us for about 6 years,
a retired Air Force Colonel. The helicopters were a second
career for him. He worked for us for about 6 years, honed his
skill, and now he flies for Black Hills Life Flight for
emergency medical services.
And I could probably produce a list of 100 pilots that have
moved on into emergency medical, search and rescue, law
enforcement, and other professions, as well.
Mr. Johnson. Well, sir, I want to thank you and the other
panelists for putting some additional context. Obviously this
is a balancing act. I mean, clearly, we want to make sure that
we are not degrading the experience for other visitors in any
of our incredible Federal lands. So, thanks for helping us
understand how we can better communicate, engage, and balance
these interests.
With that, I would yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. I will recognize myself
for my next 5 minutes.
Mr. Schlaefli and Mr. Tomlin, NPOAG, how many times do they
meet a year?
Mr. Tomlin. I don't have the exact meetings, but once a
year there is a formal meeting, and I know they have multiple
meetings----
Dr. Gosar. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Once a year? Once a year.
Mr. Tomlin. Yes. Is it two?
Dr. Gosar. Even two times a year. And the reason I bring
that up is that both Mr. Schlaefli and yourself have brought up
this condensed version in regards to the FAA. And once a year
or even twice a year talking with the FAA doesn't meet it with
me. That is a liability trap for you.
So, if you could look into your magical ball, how many
times do you think they should meet?
Mr. Tomlin. Well, I think, and thank you, Chairman, for the
question, I think what would be most beneficial for NPOAG is to
assign a subgroup out of NPOAG, because NPOAG encompasses all
of them. And where I have seen NPOAG be very effective is when
they assign kind of like a task force out of that group that
can meet more frequently. And I have seen them actually make
some progress addressing a specific park's concerns or some
language that they want to get in there for manuals and that
kind of thing.
So, I would recommend assigning a task force, per the park
that is under review, and then having that task force meet
frequently via electronic means or in person with the
stakeholders of that park.
Dr. Gosar. So, also being very particular about that group,
making it more state-based or location-based, right?
Mr. Tomlin. Absolutely. Park-based would be best.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Schlaefli, do you have anything to comment?
Mr. Schlaefli. Yes, I think something important to add
there is that NPOAG provides expertise around the table that
the National Park Service does not possess. And I think that is
a very important part of the equation when it comes to
discussing the value of NPOAG. You have all of the affected
parties sitting at the table with the expertise to work out the
issues, and I think that is one of the more important pieces of
it.
Dr. Gosar. So, both Mr. Slater and yourself brought up this
process of consultation. Mr. Slater made a comment, and he said
he wants to slow it down. Would you think that that would be
the same thing, slowing this process down, or actually even
breaking it up into different parts?
Mr. Schlaefli. Thank you, Chairman, for the question.
Slowing it down would be great for me right now, because I am
facing the complete loss of my ability to operate.
I think it needs to be thoughtful. It needs to be based on
quality data, as directed by the National Park Service 4.1.1.
It has to be high-quality, scientific data that these decisions
are based on. And I don't necessarily know that speed plays
into this.
For example, I could execute a voluntary agreement tomorrow
and we could have avoided this entire process. And that was
never presented to us as an option. And repeated requests for
that conversation were completely ignored.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Slater, you are a Councilman, so you know
some of these ideas. What would we be your ideas?
Mr. Slater. In terms of slowing it down, Mr. Gosar?
Dr. Gosar. Yes.
Mr. Slater. I agree with that. And I would say because each
tribe is unique and each park is the ancestral homes of
different tribes, there needs to be an appropriate amount of
time to meet with each of them.
That said, I only receive a limited amount of information
as a member of NPOAG about the status of the consultation
specifically with the tribes. They do give us updates on what
is taking place across the board. But, it is a lot for one
person to have, and I don't get invited into those
consultations, despite offering to make myself available to
advise on them.
So, I would like to see it slow down just so that there can
be a reflection on what has worked and what has not worked thus
far, and I want to make sure that tribes are meaningfully being
consulted.
Dr. Gosar. Well, and that would facilitate if you had any
incursion on one of your sacred sites. It would be easy if you
met more frequently, slower, and more authority given to that
process, you could say, ``Listen, wait a minute, we had this
flight that went over here, can we address that?'' It seems to
me like you would have more impact on that process.
Mr. Slater. Yes, I have to say it is totally dependent on
each park and situation. Some can move forward in a good
manner. Canyon de Chelly is currently up for draft comment
right now.
The preferred alternative is no flights, and that is out of
respect to the local communities. My chapters have passed
resolutions opposing overflights. There are only a few that
happen each year. It is not going to be a tremendous loss. None
of them are located on Navajo. We are not getting revenue from
it or any benefit to our people. So, it totally depends on the
park.
Dr. Gosar. Well, I have to tell you I am very concerned in
regards to the FAA's involvement. It seems it should be non-
stop because you are incurring the ramifications should
anything bad happen. And if they are not dictating that
process, or they are not being overseen by it, we have a
problem. Mayday, mayday.
So, I am going to ask the last question, and each one of
you can respond. What was the question you wanted to hear, but
didn't hear, and what is its answer?
Mr. Wells, I will start with you.
Mr. Wells. Thanks, sir. A question that I wanted to hear
and that I didn't hear is what can we do to make the National
Park System, be it ground or air, more amenable to disabled
veterans. And I mentioned ground, although that is not part of
this hearing, because we are forced to take to the air because
we don't have the ability to view the national parks and their
beauty on the ground, or at least too many of us don't.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Tomlin?
Mr. Tomlin. Thank you for the question. The question I most
wanted to hear was the use-or-lose nature of reducing the IOA.
Why do we need IOA? Why do I need overflight allocations if I
didn't use them for the years that were evaluated between 2017
and 2019?
And a perfectly good scenario is the Glen Canyon National
Park. Glen Canyon was a much quieter park over 10 years ago.
And then, it seems like a photo on Instagram went up about
Antelope Canyon and Horseshoe Bend, and then, bam, the market
shifted and the public demanded to see those parks at a high
degree. So, you have seen a lot of infrastructure poured up
there. And we had a high demand for air tourism.
We used to fly those air tours 20, 30 years ago, but
weren't currently utilizing them 10 years ago. Thank goodness
we had that IOA, we can meet that demand. And we saw those air
tours where we might have seen them in Grand Canyon shift to
Glen Canyon. And, for instance, in this process we had 1,300
Bryce Canyon IOA. There was a time we used every single one of
those IOA. We got reduced to 38. And right now, as we are
trying to recover from COVID, we have to really consolidate and
focus on which parks we are growing. But I can't grow in Bryce
Canyon past 38.
So, those market shifts, those trends shifts, the public
shifts, and we would like to be able to offer those products to
those customers who want it. Thank you.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Slater?
Mr. Slater. The Kardashian effect, right? Post about
Antelope Canyon. Thank you very much, Chairman Gosar.
I would like to refer back to the comments that I made to
Ranking Member Stansbury about reflecting both FAA and the
National Park Service, and why they have only been able to have
one member participate in NPOAG representing Native American
interests, and that is my ask, and I hope that Congress can
support that.
But secondarily, I just want to close and say that we have
this concept on Navajo called hozho. That is balance, harmony,
and beauty. And while it may appear that we are all in an
adversarial relationship here, I think we are all engaged in
trying to appreciate the natural world, our Mother Earth. And
there is a way that we can all give a little to ensure that
future generations can appreciate it in a really meaningful
way.
So, thank you for this opportunity.
Mr. Schlaefli. Thank you, Chairman, for that question. I am
going to keep mine really simple, ``Where is the FAA today?''
That would be the question that I would have liked to have been
asked.
The FAA is charged with being the lead agency in this. And
at almost every single hearing, and all the documents that come
out, they all come straight from the National Park Service.
That is the question I would have liked answered today is where
is the FAA in this process. Significant safety issues exist,
and they have to be addressed.
Dr. Gosar. Well, I just have to tell you, I feel the same
way. I don't think this board should meet anything less than
every quarter. That is just me. And there should be action
items and time variables placed in it, whether it be veterans,
whether it be the FAA in regards to the consolidation of the
corridors, to consultation, to looking at the business aspect.
Because we are far past that, this road, and we have to have
that done.
So, my suggestion is slow this process down and do it
right. A good process builds good policy, which builds good
politics. And it is not being done here.
With that, I want to thank every Member for your
conversation with us. And I want to thank you for your valuable
testimony. We will take it back with us.
And we thank the Members for their questions. Members of
the Committee may have some additional questions for the
witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to these in writing.
Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Committee will submit
questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. on December 8.
The hearing record will be held open for 10 business days for
these responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:22 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Submission for the Record by Rep. Gosar
SOUTHWEST SAFARIS
Santa Fe, New Mexico
July 13, 2023
Hon. Sam Graves, Chairman
Hon. Rick Larsen, Ranking Member
House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee
Hon. Garret Graves, Chairman
Hon. Steve Cohen, Ranking Member
Aviation Subcommittee
2165 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressmen Graves, Larsen, Graves, and Cohen:
I am writing to alert the House Transportation & Infrastructure
Committee and its Aviation Subcommittee to a serious problem involving
the way the FAA is implementing what is known as Air Tour Management
Plans (ATMPs). These plans are required by Congress and determine the
manner in which air tour operators (ATOs) conduct scenic flights over
NPS units. Scenic flights constitute significant commercial operations.
I allege that the FAA has knowingly and deliberately ignored a
mandate by Congress that the agency conduct pertinent (defined to mean
``current, comprehensive, relevant, accurate, and science-based'')
sound studies at National Parks and Monuments before implementing
ATMPs. By so doing, the agency has ignored an Act of Congress,
disregarded the primacy of Congressional laws over agency regulations,
failed to perform due diligence, abused its powers of agency
discretion, and deprived air tour operators of due process/civil
rights. The problem involves virtually every State and is growing
rapidly. Small aviation businesses are being destroyed in record
numbers. Yet the FAA persists, arguing that executive force of agency
trumps legislative reason of law. I ask that Congress intervene to
prevent further abuse.
Air Tour Management Plans are mandated by the National Parks Air
Tour Management Act of 2000, otherwise known as NPATMA (or, ``the
Act''). The Act spells out who qualifies as an ATO, how they are to
apply for authority to fly over National Parks and Monuments, the
content and nature of ATMPs, and other administrative details.
ATOs generally support the Act because, in addition to regulating
the day-to-day conduct of air tours over units of the National Park
Service, the Act also acknowledges and protects ATOs right to fly over
said Parks. ATOs strenuously object, however, to the FAA's abuse of the
statute to arbitrarily and capriciously deconstruct the air tour
industry despite the stated Will of Congress to the contrary. Please
see the attached letter of July 3, 2023, page 9, addressed to the FAA's
Environmental Division, in which I quote the Honorable John J. Duncan,
Chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee at the time that NPATMA was
drafted.
NPATMA begins by stating the purpose of the Act. Section
40128(b)(1)(B) says:
The objective of any air tour management plan shall be 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,
visitor experiences, and tribal lands. [Emphasis added.]
One of the main goals of Congress was to control the amount of
noise commercial aircraft were creating over Parks and Monuments. At
the time that the Act was enacted, Congress thought, and presumably
still does, that noise had the potential to create the greatest adverse
effect on natural and cultural resources, visitor experiences, and
tribal lands.
However, Congress was not convinced that environmental interests
were telling the truth about noise. ``Potential'' noise is not the same
as actual. Congress was skeptical that environmental groups were
exaggerating their claims about aircraft noise and/or skewing their
testimonies as to the time, place, and magnitude of ``the problem.''
That is why Congress inserted the ``if any'' phrase quoted above. The
phrase carries enormous significance, requiring that all data/evidence,
assumptions, and conclusions be tested and verified as being current,
comprehensive, relevant, accurate, and science-based (i.e., pertinent)
in order to determine veracity. The phrase is, in effect, a ``prove
it'' clause, and the clause is an order. The ``if any'' phrase imposes
a mandate to positively determine the scope and degree of ``significant
adverse impacts'' as they currently exist. Untested testimony,
allegation, conjecture, supposition, hearsay, innuendo, opinion,
speculation, and feelings of abuse allowed under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) would not, by themselves,
suffice to confirm existence of ``adverse effect'' under NPATMA. Nor
would old and outdated studies be considered to be relevant and
reasonable scientific evidence in a working environment that is
constantly changing.
To ensure objective environmental analysis, Congress added specific
language to the Act, known as Section 808, that spells out the manner
in which determinations of aircraft sound levels must be made and
evaluated. It reads:
Any methodology adopted by a Federal agency to assess air tour
noise in any unit of the national park system (including the
Grand Canyon and Alaska) shall be based on reasonable
scientific methods. [Emphasis added.]
Thus, putting the two mandates together, the Act requires both
substantiation of actual (not theoretical) adverse effects and
application of ``reasonable scientific methods'' (not deductive
speculation) . . . including the acquisition of current evidence/data
(versus historical records that cannot be verified or challenged) . . .
where any analysis of sound impact is at issue.
Under the Act, there must be a specific order of investigation and
implementation of corrective measures, if in fact any corrections might
even be necessary. First, current aircraft sound levels must be
empirically recorded and mathematically measured. Then, second, the FAA
was instructed to adopt methodology to analyze the date based on
``reasonable scientific methods.'' Third, after proving (testing and
verifying) that excessive noise exists over any particular unit of the
National Park Service, based only on real measurements, an ATMP could
be created, if necessary, to correct the situation. The basis of my
complaint to the House Aviation Subcommittee is that the FAA has
completely disregarded the order of the Act, picking which
Congressional laws and agency regulations the agency will comply with
and ignoring the rest. For the six Parks cited, there was no scientific
methodology used to arrive at the FAA's assessments and final
determinations. The FAA's ``evidence'' is primarily based on
accusations.
The ``shall'' mandate of Section 808 declares that objective
scientific methodology was to prevail and NPATMA was to be the
controlling legal authority, not NHPA. The reason is very clear: under
NHPA, there is no requirement to gather objective data; mere
accusations alone constitute convicting evidence of ``adverse impact.''
Nor would NEPA regulations be able to take command away from NPATMA
law. No contrived regulations under NEPA . . . drafted by the ever-
creative Council on Environmental Quality, having concocted exemptions
based on ``categorical park exclusions'' (CATEX) and ``theory of no
adverse effects'' . . . would be allowed to get around the imposition
of pertinent sound studies.
NPATMA 40128(b)(4)(C) says:
Procedure--In establishing an air tour management plan for a
national park or tribal lands, the Administrator and the
Director shall . . . comply with the regulations set forth in
sections 1501.3 and 1501.5 through 1501.8 of title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations [if they are consistent with other Acts].
The FAA relies on these regulations in support of its theories of
CATEX and ``no adverse effects.'' The problem is, in the present
instance, none of these regulations are applicable.
NEPA Section 1500.3(a) controls all NEPA regulations which follow
that paragraph. It specifies which NEPA regulations apply under any
given situation. Section 1500.3(a) says:
Mandate. This subchapter is applicable to and binding on all
Federal agencies for implementing the procedural provisions of
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (Pub.
L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA or the Act), except
where compliance would be inconsistent with other statutory
requirements. [Emphasis added.]
The ``shall'' mandate of NPATMA 808 makes regulatory compliance
with CEQ regulations statutorily ``inconsistent'' with NPATMA. The Act
dictates that pertinent sound studies shall be performed under all
conditions; NEPA does not require them under most conditions. Second,
the Act strongly indicates that the sound studies should be performed
before ATMPs may be implemented; proof of need for remedy must precede
corrective action. The concept of timely sound studies is largely
irrelevant under NEPA. Third, under NPATMA, no exemptions, exclusions,
or legal fantasies that might be employed by the FAA under NEPA are to
be considered. Congressional law overrides allowance of special-
interest/purpose regulations. Fourth, NPATMA makes no mention of NHPA
and makes no concessions to it, and the only reference to NEPA is
conditional. There is an implied ``if'' imbedded in the ``shall''
command rendered in NPATMA 40128(b)(4)(C), according to NEPA Section
1500.3(a). Congress compels the FAA to comply with the regulations set
forth in sections 1501.3 and 1501.5 through 1501.8 of title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations if, and only if, said instructions are consistent
with other Acts. They are not, as shown above. Therefore, NPATMA
remains the controlling legal authority. The Will of Congress for
current, objective, and relevant (pertinent) sound studies must prevail
for the Act to hold together.
I contend, agreeing with Congress, that it is not possible to
``develop acceptable and effective measures to mitigate or prevent the
``significant adverse impacts'' of air tour overflights without first
assessing aircraft noise. Furthermore, no reasonable assessment of
``adverse impact'' of any kind can be done without including current
pertinent noise studies under today's conditions. Studies conducted 16-
23 years ago must be considered irrelevant to current conditions.
Historic studies may be interesting for comparative purposes, but they
are not pertinent for decision-making purposes. Over time, the number,
routes, and altitudes of air tours have changed. Likewise, over time,
aircraft technology has changed, including the types of aircraft,
engines, and propellers used. One cannot assume that air tour
operations are consistent or stable over a 25-year period given the
rate of change in today's society. Congress did its best to recognize
this fact in Section 808, endeavoring to compel the FAA and NPS to use
``reasonable scientific methods'' to determine sound presence and
impact.
I point out that the FAA has knowingly sidestepped the agency's
obligation to meaningfully, effectively, and statutorily comply with
Section 808 (having only cited historic sound studies, but not
employing analysis of current data) for the sake of ``administrative
expediency.'' On May 1, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit on May 1, 2020, directed the FAA and NPS
to submit a plan by August 31, 2020, to develop ATMPs or voluntary
agreements to bring 23 Parks into compliance with the Act within 2
years, or offer concrete reasons why it would take longer than 2 years
to comply. The FAA knew at the time, but failed to inform the Court, of
the FAA's obligation to comply with Section 808, and therefore
committed fraud on the Court, knowing that it would be impossible to
comply with the Order without depriving ATOs of due process. The
absence of current sound studies would make it impossible for ATOs to
mount a defense against the FAA's determinations, which imposed the
worst possible air tour restrictions. I allege that the FAA used the
Court to force the FAA to do what that agency could not have
accomplished on its own, forcing the agency to ignore Section 808
(because the Court allowed no time to comply) and compelling the FAA to
disrespect the Will of Congress (by dismantling the air tour industry
without first performing pertinent noise tests), which the FAA could
not otherwise justify. I allege that this ``rogue intent of agency''
still exists at the very top levels of the FAA, today.
I will give six examples of typical Parks that represent failure of
ATMP process across the Nation. The FAA recently enacted four ATMPs for
the State of Utah: Arches, Bryce, Canyonlands, and Natural Bridges.
Another was completed for Death Valley in California and Nevada, and
then another for Badlands, South Dakota. The FAA conducted sound
studies in these parks in roughly the same decade of time, early 2000s.
The studies are all of historic value, not current. The noise
studies for Arches were only intermittently conduced between 2000 and
2007. In Bryce, the noise studies were conducted in the years 2009 and
2010. In the case of Canyonlands, the noise studies were conducted in
2006 and 2007. For Natural Bridges, the sound scoping was conducted in
2006 and 2007. In Death Valley, 2008. For Badlands, 2003.
These studies are as much as 23 years old. In the intervening
years, not only has aircraft technology become significantly quieter,
but the ambient noise level in parks has become measurably louder,
because of record park visitation. I argue that the noise studies the
FAA is relying on are out of date and inapplicable to today's reality.
Furthermore, the FAA has given no specific, case by case, information
to the public as to how these noise studies were conducted, so there is
no way to know or challenge the studies' scope, relevance, or
``reasonable scientific methodology.'' Only vague references are made
to modeling methods. Under Appendix F of the Badlands Environmental
Assessment, the FAA includes a catalogue of ``Literature Cited'' in
support of its noise modeling methods, but most of the references are
as outdated as the original sound study itself, many going back to
2003.
Methods and techniques of noise modeling have changed over the
years. Many old methods are no longer acceptable. I observe that many
basic modeling techniques and assumptions have been discredited over
the same 23-year time period since the earliest study mentioned above,
causing an uproar of dissention in the environmental community (re.
global warming). I note also that noise models were highly contentious
and successfully contested when the FAA drew up the Grand Canyon
special flight rules. Noise models are inherently fraught with errors
precisely because they do not incorporate strict scientific methods.
The output frequently defiles the input.
In any case, the FAA asserts that there has been ``no significant
change'' in park conditions and scenic overflight operations in 23
years. I argue that this is simply not the case. The FAA's data is out-
of-date and skewed. The FAA's data tends to minimize natural sounds and
maximize aircraft noise, to the detriment of ATOs. Therefore, the FAA's
data is not pertinent (current, comprehensive, relevant, accurate, and
science-based). The FAA's outdated data does not allow the agency to
meet, let alone overcome, the ``if any'' challenge of Congress.
I argue, precisely because of the ``stale-dated'' and generally-
unscientific data that the FAA is relying on, the Agency has not
proven, using pertinent data, that there is convincing need for
aircraft noise control. In interest of brevity, I will cite two
examples, beginning with Arches National Park.
Quoting from the Record of Decision, Air Tour Management Plan for
Arches National Park, Appendix B, Environmental Screening Form,
Evaluation of the ATMP, Table 1, Soundscapes (Acustic Environment),
Page 8:
Baseline acoustic conditions in the Park were measured in 2000
and continued intermittently through 2007 (Ambrose and Florian,
2008). Long term monitoring was conducted at [only] two sites,
the existing ambient sound level was reported to be 19-24
decibels, while the natural ambient sound level was reported to
be 18-24 decibels. Short-term monitoring was conducted at eight
other sites. The existing ambient sound level at the short-term
sites was 19-42 decibels. Natural ambient sound levels were not
modeled for the short-term sites. [Editorial comments added.]
With respect to long-term monitoring, the existing ambient sound
levels are almost exactly the same as the natural ambient sound levels.
With respect to short-term monitoring conducted at eight other sites,
existing ambient sound levels were acknowledged to be high considering
all forms of aircraft noise (general aviation, airline, military, and
air tour). But the figures are meaningless. The FAA does not say how
often the noise levels reach 42 decibels, nor for how long, nor does
the FAA allocate any specific measurement of noise to air tour
aircraft. So, what is the specific problem with air tour noise? The FAA
never addresses the question, conveniently letting it drop. Nor does
the FAA state why Natural ambient sound levels were not modeled for the
short-term sites; there is no basis or opportunity for comparison by
ATOs. The FAA does not seem to care that its data does not support the
agency's findings. I could have just as easily quoted from the RODs for
Badlands, Bryce, Canyonlands, Death Valley, or Natural Bridges National
Parks/Monuments. The ``researched'' data the FAA presents for those
parks reads almost the same. The FAA has not demonstrated ``cause for
correction,'' only a persistent desire for determination of adverse
effect.
For each of the six Parks referenced above, not just Arches, the
FAA carefully presented a ROD in an Appendix to the respective
Environmental Screening Form (ESF). Each ESF has an extensive reference
section with supporting studies and documentation on noise. The problem
is, all of these supporting studies and documents were produced at the
same time and are equally out of date. Of even greater import, however,
is the FAA's false reliance on its noise models to serve as the
baseline to determine existing conditions of noise conditions within
the respective ATMP planning areas.
For all of the six Parks, the FAA relies on noise modeling to make
its calculations of ``adverse impact.'' This is allowable under NEPA.
Paragraph 1502.23 of NEPA says, ``Agencies are not required to
undertake new scientific and technical research to inform their
analyses.'' However, this statement is directly contrary to NPATMA, the
controlling legal authority in the present instance. Paragraph 1502.23
does not apply to NPATMA, and Congress does not refer to that paragraph
in NPATMA 40128(b)(4)(C) in order to grant special exception.
The Act (NPATMA) says (as quoted above) that ``any methodology''
used by the FAA to assess air tour noise shall be based on ``reasonable
scientific methods.'' Noise models do not constitute scientific
methodology, even with incorporation of timely, accurate, thorough, and
objective data obtained from vigorous field research. A noise model is
just another term for an ``Aviation Environmental Design Tool'' (AEDT),
to use an FAA term. The output from an AEDT is totally dependent on
whatever numbers (including formulas) are input. The input data the FAA
is using is too old, too few, too isolated, and too infrequently
gathered, representing unreliable assumptions of present conditions,
this on top of biased formulas. ATOs claim that the FAA is controlling
the input so as to get a predetermined output that is contrary to the
interests of ATOs.
My second example has to do with Badlands National Park. Here, the
FAA all but admits that its noise data for the Park is ``stale-dated,''
incomplete, and biased. The FAA's data is both old and lacking in
coverage to the point that extensive noise modeling had to be
incorrectly employed to make up (``correct'') the difference. I quote
from the Badlands ATMP Environmental Assessment, Section 3.1.1,
Affected Environment:
To characterize the natural and existing ambient (both with and
without air tours), detailed sound level measurements were
conducted at [only] three locations across the Park in 2003
(Lee et al., 2016). These acoustic sampling locations were
chosen to be representative of the natural ecological zones or
broad ecosystems of the Park and ATMP planning area.
[Incredibly,] these locations were not chosen to specifically
measure the amount of air tour noise. From the detailed [?]
data collected in 2003 [based on only three sites], an ambient
``map'' of the natural soundscape of the ATMP planning area was
developed to be used in computer modeling (Figure 5) [which,
under NPATMA, does not involve ``reasonable scientific
methods'']. For more explanation for how sound is described,
see the Noise Technical Analysis, (Appendix F, Table 1.
[The FAA goes on to say:] The contribution of aircraft noise
during sound level measurements only provides a snapshot in
time at a particular location and is not necessarily a
representative characterization of current conditions. Current
conditions were [artificially and deductively] determined by
adding the noise exposure due to air tours, (LAeq, 12h), based
on a peak month [why not average month], average day and
modeled using the FAA AEDT Version 3e, to the Existing Ambient
without Air Tours (L50)11 (see Appendix F, Noise Technical
Analysis). The result of this process is the [purely
hypothetical] Cumulative Existing Ambient (Figure 6).
[Comments, underline, and emphasis added.]
In other words, the FAA's AEDT borders on pure fiction, biased
first in one direction and then magnanimously in another.
An AEDT is just a fancy name for a spreadsheet. Spreadsheets can be
easily manipulated to produce whatever output one wants, as in the
example just quoted where the FAA contrives to create artificial
``current conditions.'' In the present situation, as is the case for
the other five Parks, the FAA's ``manufactured'' current conditions are
never tested in the field for present-day accuracy. This fact alone
establishes that the FAA did not use ``reasonable scientific methods''
to get, analyze, or verify the truthfulness of the agency's referenced
sound studies for Badlands, or any of the other five Parks.
Spreadsheets, themselves, are not science. Science is based on
acquiring original data by observation in the field. Noise models, in
contrast, are based on deductive armchair reasoning. Therefore, I
argue, primary reliance on AEDT technology is not allowable under
NPATMA as a conclusive means of determining ``adverse impact.'' This is
one of the reasons I have argued above that NPATMA is the controlling
legal authority for ATMPs, not NEPA. Under NPATMA, the 1502.23 possible
allowance for using AEDT technology does not apply. But even if it did,
the FAA would still be required to use scientific methodology to
control the input with current, comprehensive, relevant, accurate, and
science-based (i.e., pertinent) data. I argue that the FAA's data, even
if one allows use of AEDT noise modeling, fails all five tests. For
multiple reasons, then, the FAA's decision that each of the six Parks'
ATMP conditions were correctly determined to meet the Act's defined
objective (``to mitigate or prevent adverse impact, if any, of
commercial air tours on natural and cultural resources, visitor
experiences, and tribal lands'') must be rejected at this time. I argue
that the ``if any'' test for excessive aircraft noise has not been
satisfied in any of the Parks that I have cited. Ignoring Congress, the
FAA has jumped straight to the ``cure'' for a disease the agency has
never properly diagnosed.
In short, I allege that, for the Parks where the FAA said they did
consider sound studies, their ``studies'' are entirely inadequate and
inapplicable to today's reality. In the cases of the Parks where the
FAA might not yet have conducted sound studies, the FAA's findings
would have no legal authority to be implemented. The point is, either
by referring to old sound studies or incorporating nonscientific noise
models, the FAA has abused the Act by not conducting noise studies that
are current, comprehensive, relevant, accurate, and science-based
(i.e., pertinent) before drafting ATMPs. Because of the ``if any''
challenge and the ``shall'' mandate, current noise studies were to
became the standard of fair decision and the prime investigatory
directive of the Act. Again and again, I allege, from every point of
view, the FAA appears to have knowingly ignored both the Act and the
Will of Congress. This constitutes blatant abuse of process.
Moreover, the burden to conduct pertinent sound studies was placed
by Congress on the US Government, not ATOs, so that the data would be
acceptable to all parties involved in the decision-making and
contesting process. The results of the studies could then be entered
into evidence. Of no less importance, pertinent sound studies were
required by the Act to ensure due process for air tour operators. With
timely, accurate, and objective sound data in hand, ATOs could
reasonably debate the proposed actions or inactions of the FAA and, if
necessary, submit differences of opinion to the courts for judicial
review. Congress recognized that said sound studies were necessary to
protect the judicial and civil rights of ATOs. Adequate sound studies
were thus assumed by Congress to be part of the fabric of the Act.
Failure to perform pertinent sound studies before implementing ATMPs
robs ATOs of due process and civil rights.
I contend that the FAA has failed to perform required due diligence
by not conducting current sound studies based on timely research in the
field at Arches, Badlands, Bryce, Canyonlands, Death Valley, and
Natural Bridges units of the NPS before implementing Air Tour
Management Plans. Additionally, I allege that the agency has
incorrectly resorted to reconstruction of law by using NHPA and NEPA to
override the intent of NPATMA in order to escape the administrative
burden of conducting sound studies. I further argue that the FAA has
deliberately engaged in unlawful acts by conspiring with the NPS to
strip ATOs of their Constitutional rights (i.e., due process and civil
liberties, referring to ATOs inability to defend their interests in
court for lack of access to evidence that was knowingly withheld,
namely pertinent sound studies).
In brief, then, here is my petition to the House Aviation
Subcommittee. Because of the FAA's failing to perform current,
comprehensive, relevant, accurate, and science-based sound studies at
these six representative units of the NPS, chosen at random, a group
that might someday be expanded to include all units of the NPS, I
argue, the process of creating ATMPs has not been completed according
to Act. Therefore, I ask Congress to recognize and instruct the FAA
that it is premature to require modification of the Operations
Specifications of air tour operators, by mandating that their
commercial operations comply with ATMPs, until pertinent sound studies
are completed for all Parks over which ATOs fly. The FAA will not come
to this conclusion on its own.
I have loudly and persistently petitioned the FAA to recognize both
the logic and the law of my request. The agency has stubbornly resisted
all appeals, for reasons that are self-serving, detrimental to air
commerce, and contrary to public interest. The FAA has connived to
strip ATOs of due process, operational rights, and constitutional
guarantees because of operational mandates ``coming down from above''
(political directives) and imperatives from below (re. the District of
Columbia Circuit Court's May 1, 2020, mandamus order). The FAA appears
to be adopting the philosophy that need for administrative expedience
justifies abuse of law and fair process. I ask your oversight office,
then, to consider the necessity for intervention in the appeals process
currently being launched by ATOs across the Nation to ensure that both
the Act and the Will of Congress is respected.
Thank you so much for your kind consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Bruce Adams
[all]