U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

67–552 u WASHINGTON : 2000

JOINT HEARING ON H.R. 3661, TO HELP ENSURE

GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT ACCESS TO

FEDERAL LAND AND TO THE AIRSPACE OVER

THAT LAND

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC

LANDS

AND

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AND

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 6, 2000, WASHINGTON, DC.

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

Serial No. 106–89

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Serial No. 106–83

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

james v. hansen, uTAH

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

GEORGE MILLER, California

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́, Puerto

Rico

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA MC CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

JAY INSLEE, Washington

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

MARK UDALL, Colorado

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

ELTON, GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

RICK HILL, Montana

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́, Puerto

Rico

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, Virgin

Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

JAY INSLEE, Washington

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

MARK UDALL, Colorado

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey

ALLEN FREEMYER, Counsel

TODD HULL, Professional Staff

LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel

GARY GRIFFITH, Professional Staff

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH

HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho, Chairman

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ADAM SMITH, Washington

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

RON KIND, Wisconsin

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

MARK UDALL, Colorado

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

DOUG CRANDALL, Staff Director

ANNE HEISSENBUTTEL, Legislative Staff

JEFF PETRICH, Minority Chief Counsel

(IV)

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

BUD SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman

DON YOUNG, Alaska

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

STEPHEN HORN, California

BOB FRANKS, New Jersey

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

JACK QUINN, New York

TILLIE K. FOWLER, Florida

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RAY LAHOOD, Illinois

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

JACK METCALF, Washington

EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

MERRILL COOK, Utah

JOHN COOKSEY, Lousiana

JOHN R. THUNE, South Dakota

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

GARY G. MILLER, California

JOHN E. SWEENEY, New York

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

STEVEN T. KUYKENDALL, California

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

ROBERT A. BORSKI, Pennsylvania

WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI, Illinois

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia

JAMES A. TRAFICANT, JR., Ohio

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

PAT DANNER, Missouri

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

FRANK MASCARA, Pennsylvania

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

MAX SANDLIN, Texas

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

JOHN ELIAS BALDACCI, Maine

MARION BERRY, Arkansas

RONNIE SHOWS, Mississippi

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

Page

V

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, Chairman

JOHN E. SWEENEY, New York, Vice

Chairman

DON YOUNG, Alaska

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin

THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

JACK QUINN, New York

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

RAY LAHOOD, Illinois

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire

JACK METCALF, Washington

EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

MERRILL COOK, Utah

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana

JOHN R. THUNE, South Dakota

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

GARY G. MILLER, California

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina

STEVEN T. KUYKENDALL, California

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

BUD SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

(Ex Officio)

WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI, Illinois

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

JOHN ELIAS BALDACCI, Maine

MARION BERRY, Arkansas

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

JAMES A. TRAFICANT, JR., Ohio

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

PAT DANNER, Missouri

BOB FILNER, California

MAX SANDLIN, Texas

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(VII)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held April, 6, 2000 .................................................................................... 1

Statement of Members:

Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Utah ........................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Statements of Witnesses:

Alexander, David, Forest Supervisor of the Payette National Forest, Department of Agriculture ................................................................................ 50

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 52

Barrett, Robert, Director, UDOT Aeronautical Operations .......................... 7

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10

Boyer, Phil, President, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association ................... 21

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23

Durtschi, Steve, President, Utah Back Country Pilots Association ............. 29

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 32

Shea, Pat, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management,

Department of the Interior ........................................................................... 59

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 61

Welsh, Barton W., Aeronautics Administrator, Division of Aeronautics,

Idaho Transportation Department .............................................................. 15

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 17

(1)

JOINT HEARING ON: H.R. 3661, TO HELP ENSURE GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT ACCESS TO FEDERAL LAND AND TO THE AIRSPACE OVER THAT LAND

THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS,

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, JOINT WITH THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH,

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, JOINT WITH THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC., Hon.

James V. Hansen (chairman of the Subcommittee on National

Parks and Public Lands) presiding.

Mr. HANSEN. The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public

Lands is the committee that I chair, and with me is the gentleman

from Tennessee who sits on this committee, but also chairs the

Committee on FAA, and we are grateful to be together. We expect

the Chairman from the Forests and Forest Health will be with us

and also the Chairman from Agriculture. They have both indicated

a willingness to be here in support of this piece of legislation.

Today we will hear testimony on H.R. 3661. This is a bill I introduced, which ensures general aviation access to back country airstrips by establishing a nationwide policy for governing airstrips on

Federal land and assuring that they cannot be closed until a public

process has been completed and approval given by the FAA and

State Aviation Boards.

Without question, back country airstrips serve the public in a variety of beneficial ways. One of these is the role they play in public

safety. Pilots across the country feel more at ease and breathe easier knowing that these airstrips are out there in case of an emergency. Furthermore, back country airstrips are also used in search

and rescue activities and firefighting efforts, as well as provide

areas for disabled aircraft to land. These airstrips also have general aviation purposes which allow those who otherwise would be

physically unable to enjoy and recreate on our vast public lands.

Currently, many of our back country airstrips are being closed or

becoming unserviceable. This is mainly due to the unilateral action

of Federal agencies. H.R. 3661 would change this by requiring the

Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to consult

2

with the FAA, to adopt a binding nationwide policy to govern aviation on Federal lands. This bill contains provisions to prevent action or inaction that would close or leave an airstrip unserviceable

without giving notice to the Federal Register, to the FAA, and to

the public.

I want to add that there seems to be some concern over who is

to maintain the strips. The Federal agencies think that this maintenance would add a significant burden on them. However, the bill

specifies that the Interior and Agriculture Departments only must

consult with the State Board of Aviation and other interested parties to ensure landing strips are maintained. Many of the pilot associations that I have talked to made it clear they will volunteer

to maintain and make small necessary improvements to these back

country airstrips. I do, and the Federal Government should also,

thank them for this volunteer offer and the effort that they have

put forth.

Before we begin the hearing, I need to say one more thing, and

I want to be very clear. The committee rules calls for all testimony,

including that of the Administration, to be delivered 48 hours in

advance of a hearing, not 48 minutes. This situation is getting the

Administration’s testimony at the last minute is simply intolerable,

and I have already canceled a number of hearings because of this

tardiness, and that is the rule of the House. And therefore, I will

take this first panel, rather than the Administration, and bring

them on second.

Having said that, I would like to turn to the gentleman from

Tennessee, the Chairman of the FAA Subcommittee, and then I

will turn to the gentlelady from Idaho for their opening comments,

and then Mr. Sweeney.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]

3

4

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Chairman Hansen. It is a

great honor and privilege for me, as the Chairman of the Aviation

Subcommittee of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,

to participate with you and my good friend, Ms. Chenoweth-Hage,

in this hearing today. I am fortunate to have the opportunity to

serve on both the Resources Committee and as Chairman of the

Aviation Subcommittee. This gives me an opportunity to see this

issue from several different perspectives.

This is not the first time that our two committees, Chairman

Hansen, have held a joint hearing. In November 1997, Chairman

Hansen and I conducted a joint hearing in St. George, Utah, on the

issue of the National Park Overflights, particularly, flights over the

Grand Canyon. That hearing led to the introduction of the National

Parks Air Management Act, which was passed by the House and

was put in our FAA Reauthorization Bill, which the President

signed into law yesterday.

On the Aviation Subcommittee, we have been concerned about

general aviation airports for several years. In 1998, we asked the

General Accounting Office to look into what the FAA was doing to

preserve the general aviation access, and some people felt that they

were not doing nearly enough at that time. As a result, we held a

hearing last June on the need to preserve general aviation airports.

We learned at that hearing that general aviation airports have

been closing over the last 25 years at a disturbing rate of one a

week. It is hard to imagine, but that is what the statistics show,

that over the last 25 years, general aviation airports have been

closing at the rate of one a week.

In the recently passed Air 21 legislation, we included a section

requiring the FAA to give pilots advanced notice before airports are

allowed to close down or to sell off their land. This will give airport

users an opportunity to comment before they lose such a valuable

resource. Of course, Air 21 applies only to airports owned and operated by state or local agencies. It does not cover airstrips that are

owned by the Federal Government and located on Federal land.

The General Aviation Access Act, which Chairman Hansen introduced, and which I co-sponsored, is basically designed to do for

Federal airstrips what Air 21 does for state and local airfields. It

would give pilots and other users an opportunity to be heard before

the landing site is closed or taken away from them. And I should

emphasize that. This does not prohibit action being taken by a Federal agency, it simply gives pilots and other users an opportunity

to be heard and to have some input before such action can be

taken.

These landing strips serve several important functions. They can

be used as a base of operations for search and rescue missions, firefighting, and aerial landing. More important, they can provide a

safe landing site for pilots in times of trouble. I am aware that the

Interior Department and the FAA may have some concerns about

this bill. I am certainly willing to hear them out and support any

modifications to the legislation and would approve it.

And I want to thank Chairman Hansen for taking the initiative

on this issue and for allowing the Aviation Subcommittee to participate, and say that Chairman Hansen may not be the most famous

Member of Congress, although he is well known. But I will tell you

5

that I, personally, do not believe I know of any member of the

House of Representatives who is more highly respected than my

good friend, Chairman Hansen, and it is a pleasure to follow your

lead on this and many other things. And I thank you very much

for allowing me to be here today.

Mr. HANSEN. Well, I thank you for those kinds words. We appreciate your testimony. We will turn to the gentlelady from Idaho,

the Chairman of the Committee on Forests and Forest Health.

Ms. CHENOWETH-HAGE. I want to thank the Chairman, and I

also agree with Mr. Duncan. I think probably Mr. Hansen is one

of the more famous members of the House. I love to embarrass

him.

But I do want to say that ensuring access to our back country

airstrips is of real extreme importance to me. Two years ago, I held

an oversight hearing on the Forest Service management of back

country airstrips; primarily, those in and around the Frank Church

River of No Return Wilderness Area in Idaho. The Frank Church

Wilderness Area was and is a good case study on the back country

airstrip issue that we are addressing today.

When the Frank Church Wilderness Area was created, Congress

included language in the legislation that required the Forest Service to keep open and maintain the airstrips within the wilderness.

To quote Senator Frank Church, ‘‘Because of the vastness of the

River of No Return area, without continued access by air, very few

people could see and enjoy the remote and less accessible parts of

the region.’’

Unfortunately, a few years ago, the Forest Service began moving

in a direction contrary to this legislation and the intent of Congress, which was and is to maintain the established uses of airstrips. Various Forest Service proposals would have led to a decrease in the maintenance of the airstrips, and as a result, a reduction in the total number of functioning airstrips. Since the hearing,

I have been told that the Forest Service has proceeded with a more

heightened sensitivity concerning the intent of Congress. And although a number of issues still remain unresolved, I really appreciate Congress Hansen’s bill, H.R. 3661, which will help to further

ensure that the back country airstrips in the Frank Church Wilderness and across the country will remain open and functioning.

This issue is such an important one to me, as so many in the

west, recreationalists, pilots, disabled people, search and rescue

teams, firefighters, and others. Two days ago, I held a hearing on

the effects of new Forest Service rulemaking and policies on recreation in the National Forest. From mountain bikers, horsemen,

snowmobilers, alike, we heard the same story. This Administration

is locking the public out of our public lands. Hopefully, efforts such

as Mr. Hansen’s will help keep back country airstrips from just

being another pod in the Administration’s plans to lock up the Federal lands.

Mr. Chairman, I want to welcome Mr. Dave Alexander. I am very

pleased that he is here and part of the witnesses. In checking his

testimony which we just got in, I notice that Mr. Alexander constantly referred to the need to allow managers the flexibility to

make decisions locally, and I agree with this very strongly. The

problem is, as we have recently uncovered, is that this AdministraVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:09 Nov 29, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 J:\67552.TXT HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
6

tion is already making local decisions from Washington, DC. with

the guidance and assistance of national environmental groups.

Now, I would prefer not to move legislation that would give more

authority on the national level, and leave it on the local level. But

if this is the only way to keep the Administration from shutting off

access to Federal lands, then I must support this bill. Thank you,

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. I thank the Chairlady from Idaho. The gentleman

from Puerto Rico.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like

to begin by welcoming our colleagues from the Forest and Aviation

Subcommittees, and we look forward to the protectives regarding

the legislation that we are going to consider today. The only matter

before us today is this legislation introduced by Chairman Hansen,

H.R. 3661. As we understand it, the intent of the legislation is to

ensure access for private planes for back country areas owned and

managed by the National Parks Service, Forest Service, and the

Bureau of Land Management.

The legislation attempts to accomplish this by passing these Federal land management agencies with undertaking maintenance on

all airstrips located on Federal lands. In addition, the bill prohibits

these agencies from taking steps to close an airstrip without FAA

and state approval, as well as the 90-day notice and comment period. Presently, the bill prohibits these agencies from allowing

these airstrips to become unserviceable through inaction or neglect.

And finally, the bill contemplates development of a national policy which would govern not just airstrips, but all general aviation

issues regarding public lands. While we surely agree that access to

back country areas is vital, the need for this specific measure is unclear. We are unaware of any evidence of appropriate access to

Federal lands as being denied to private pilots, nor are we aware

of any evidence that the search and rescue, firefighting, or other

emergency services are being hampered by current practices.

Furthermore, we have serious concerns regarding the implementation of this legislation. No inventory of landing strips on Federal

land exists. This legislation does not define the term, the scope of

the bill is difficult to modify. In addition, the bill provides no clear

standards for maintenance to guide the agencies in their new role.

Will they be required to keep these strips to FAA standards or does

some lesser standard exist?

It is also unclear how the agencies might comply with the bill’s

prohibition of inaction or neglect. For example, how could an agency provide 90 days notice on a common field before failing to act?

Finally, it is unclear how this legislation, including the new national policy of mandates, would match with existing policies governing land management and related general aviation issues.

I will look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today, and

it is our hope that their insight might clear up some of the concerns that we have expressed.

Mr. HANSEN. I thank the gentleman for his comment. Is there

any member of the three committees that are involved in this particular piece of legislation that have an opening comment or a

burning in your bosom, you have just got to get it out? If not, why

do not we go ahead with this hearing.

7

Our panel that we have with us, our first panel, Mr. Robert Barrett, Director of UDOT, Utah Department of Transportation Aeronautical Operations; Mr. Barton W. Welsh, Aeronautics Administrator, Division of Aeronautics, Idaho Transportation Department;

Mr. Phil Boyer, President of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association—and incidentally, Mr. Boyer was the driving force of the

tort liability issue which I think has kind of salvaged things like

general aviation—and my good friend and neighbor, Mr. Steve

Durtschi, President of the Utah Back Country Pilots Association,

which is a good group of individuals who have done an outstanding

job for aviation in the State of Utah.

Mr. Barrett, we will start with you, sir.

STATEMENTS OF ROBERT BARRETT, DIRECTOR, UDOT AERONAUTICAL OPERATIONS; ACCOMPANIED BY BARTON W.

WELSH, AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATOR, DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS, IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT; PHIL

BOYER, PRESIDENT, AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION; STEVE DURTSCHI, PRESIDENT, UTAH BACK COUNTRY PILOTS ASSOCIATION

STATEMENT OF ROBERT BARRETT

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,

my name is Robert Barrett. I am the Director of the Utah Division

of Aeronautics, a division of the Utah Department of Transportation. I have come to testify before this subcommittee and to

present a printed statement for inclusion in the congressional

record in behalf of H.R. 3661, the General Aviation Access Act.

My division administers all Federal and state funding for publicuse airports in Utah. We are responsible for all aviation-based

transportation issues. In addition, we operate three airplanes to

provide air transportation to state government officials and employees who travel on the state’s business. We frequently take our

passengers over the most spectacular scenery that exists anywhere

in this great country of ours and, in fact, in the entire world.

The frequent oohs and aahs of our passengers remind us of the

beauty and drive home to us how truly fortunate we are to fly in

such an area. John Gillespie Magee’s beloved poem entitled, High

Flight, comes to mind, for there is no other place in my experience

where one can so readily reach out and ‘‘touch the face of God.’’

The General Aviation Access Act is very important to all who fly

over Utah and other western states where vast areas are designated as mountainous terrain, where airports are few and population is sparse. In Utah, the uranium boom days of the 1950’s and

1960’s left their mark in numerous landing strips bladed out in the

canyons and river bottoms and on remote mesa tops which were

there to resupply prospectors. These are unimproved dirt strips,

1,000 to 2,000 feet long, with no associated roads, no instrument

approaches, no runway lights, no services, no based airplanes and

no people.

On the Utah Aeronautical Charts, which I have provided as Exhibit 1, you will find many of these strips designated by a small

circle or by an R with a circle around it. These airstrips are very

important. They represent a safe haven to a pilot faced with a sudVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:09 Nov 29, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 J:\67552.TXT HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
8

den engine failure in a single engine aircraft or an emergency that

requires getting the airplane on the ground right now. Our last revision to the State Aeronautical Chart and the airport directory on

the reverse side began to identify some of these landing strips so

the pilots will have enough information to land safely in emergencies. Such emergencies do not happen often, but when they do,

the pilot needs a place to get down. These back country strips serve

an essential safety role as emergency landing areas.

These strips serve a recreational purpose as well. You will hear

others testify how these back country strips make accessible to the

disabled and others the unparalleled beauties of the remote wilderness that I described.

I will now address two specific issues that have been raised by

environmental interest groups opposed to passage of H.R. 3661.

First, the allegation has been made that these landing strips would

become the regular destinations of the aircraft of the drug cartels

and their deadly cargo. Not so. These landing strips so welcome to

a pilot in distress are not suitable for the largely multi-engine and

turboprop aircraft which are the preference of drug runners. While

they have shown a penchant for throwing away an expensive aircraft on a one-way trip, they have not extended this to throwing

away pilots. Taking a twin-engine turboprop into a 1,200 foot sand

and sagebrush runway in a box canyon at night would be a recipe

for a serious crash landing at best, and more likely, a sure fatality

for all aboard. And since most of these strips are many miles from

the nearest road, transporting any significant volume of drugs

would be difficult.

Secondly, those opposed to any use of these landing strips have

alleged that each would become a busy weekend destination for

hordes of private pilots who would turn the wilderness into vast

public campgrounds. This is not going to happen. These strips will

never be the destination of more than a handful of skilled and experienced pilots who own aircraft designed and built to fly into unimproved strips and rough terrain. The average recreational flyer

has neither the training nor the skill, nor access to the right aircraft, to fly into these strips. Each strip would likely see no more

than one or two aircraft in any given week.

Now, the actions that my division would propose if H.R. 3661 becomes law: First, I would pledge to work with the BLM and the

Forest Service, and with the FAA, the Utah Back Country Pilots

Association, and various environmental interest groups, and other

potential users to decide which back country strips are essential to

the safety of general aviation and other appropriate recreation and

utilitarian needs. We would develop a plan to release those that

are not needed and allow them to be returned to natural wilderness.

No use of Federal AIP funds nor state appropriated airport construction and maintenance funds would be used for the restoration

or preservation of back country airstrips. We would enlist the aid

of the back country pilots and other private citizen groups to adopt

an airstrip and to take responsibility for the restoration and upkeep of those which are designated for preservation.

I would conclude by saying that H.R. 3661 is a good bill and that

its passage would provide long-term benefits to our citizens and

9

visitors from other countries. The cost and detrimental effects of its

passage would be so small as to be immeasurable. I recommend to

the subcommittee its favorable recommendation to the House and

its strong support for passage by the Senate and the President.

I thank you for the opportunity you have given me to come and

speak.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Barrett follows:]

10

11

12

13

14

15

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Mr. Welsh, we will turn

to you, sir. If you would pull that mike up close to you, we would

appreciate it.

STATEMENT OF BARTON W. WELSH

Mr. WELSH. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you so

much for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 3661, the bill to help

ensure general aviation aircraft access to Federal lands and the

airspace over that land.

The State of Idaho has a number of state and federally owned

aircraft landing strips. Idaho is known nationwide for its air access

to wilderness and primitive areas. Each of these strips is considered by us to be an irreplaceable state and national treasure. The

reality today is that if any of these strips were lost, they could not

be replaced because of the language of existing wilderness legislation.

When the Frank Church Wilderness was established in Idaho, it

incorporated a provision to provide for the continued operation of

all existing landing strips. The provision states that existing landing strips may not be closed permanently or rendered unserviceable

without the written consent of the State of Idaho. Over the years,

this stipulation has proved a very satisfactory working relationship

between the personnel from the Forest Service and incorporated

their staff with the Division of Aeronautics and other interested

parties to work out solutions that would have been very difficult.

I would like to share two of these with you today. One is a landing strip known as Wilson Bar. This strip is on the Salmon River

and has been a landing strip for many years. It was originally built

by a miner some time in the late 1930’s or early 1940’s. The first

airplane to ever land there landed in a meadow as a true emergency when the aircraft had engine difficulties. Realizing the value

of this, the owner of the mining claim improved the strip and made

it available to other pilots to conduct business with him and access

that particular area. There was at the time no other airstrip along

that portion of the river.

Over time the strip became somewhat overgrown with trees and

shrubbery and was being used less and less. In 1994, the local pilots in Idaho began to use the landing strip for recreational purposes for access to that area and wished to improve it for potential

emergency. Some Forest Service representatives felt that since the

airport had seen infrequent use for many years, it might be best

left closed. Because of the language in the Frank Church Wilderness Act, the situation was looked at with legal interpretations and

it was felt that the airport was protected by the Act and should remain open to all aircraft operations.

With that, there was a cooperative effort between the Forest

Service and the local pilots to remove the necessary trees, put the

airstrip back into a usable condition. The airstrip is open today and

is used by a number of people, and is an example of my opinion

of the type of cooperation that this Act brought about.

The second example is a landing strip on Big Creek, known as

Cabin Creek airstrip. This strip was badly damaged by a flood in

1997. A small tributary known as Cow Creek, just above the airstrip, overran its bank in the spring runoff and the water traveled

16

virtually the length of the dirt strip, doing a large amount of damage. Again, the Forest Service and the local pilots association,

along with the Idaho Aviation Division, met to deal with the situation. This was unique in that it was wilderness where there was

an agreement no mechanized equipment may be used. Although

the Act does not allow for mechanized equipment, it does allow for

mechanized equipment to be used in extreme situations.

It was felt that bringing tractors and bulldozers in the area

might be viewed by some individuals as compromising the wilderness values. It was agreed the airstrip should be repaired with

mules and drawbars. The financial needs were addressed by the

Forest Service and the project did take place and the strip is now

open.

I point these two examples as opportunities that without restriction to the Act, these two strips would surely have been lost forever. The language in H.R. 3661 is virtually the same as we have

found successful in the Frank Church Act, protecting all landing

strips in the wilderness area.

I would be remiss if I did not mention one particular person that

works for the Forest Service, who was mentioned already today,

Mr. Dave Alexander, the Forest Supervisor for the Payette National Forest. Mr. Alexander has consistently taken a cooperative

position where areas that we work together. We have seen the

value of aviation and realize the importance of the back country

strips. These strips allow people to have access to areas that would

not be otherwise possible. The aircraft do not damage in any way

the terrain, they do not wander off the given path in the woods,

there is no damage to the process of getting there. They do not

break down the trails and cut across small corners to cause erosion.

The aircraft simply go to one place. It is an essential part of the

Wilderness Act.

Aircraft for the State of Idaho are a very important economic

consideration. We have a number of air taxis that provide access

for recreation and administrative purposes. Examples of people accessing the wilderness by air are hunters, fishermen, rafters, forest

service, law enforcement. I would like to repeat again that all back

country wilderness strips in Idaho or any other state in the Nation

are an irreplaceable asset, that it would be irresponsible for us not

to protect them. This Act does exactly that.

I would strongly support your supporting this act and I would be

happy and delighted to any questions the committee might have.

Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Welsh follows:]

17

18

19

20

21

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Welsh. Mr. Boyer.

STATEMENT OF PHIL BOYER

Mr. BOYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, I represent

the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, almost 360,000 of our

nation’s pilots and about 110,000 owners of general aviation airplanes who use these particular strips for both recreation and/or

business use. Primarily, our members, well trained, as you heard

earlier, fly in the western states at many of these airports. But as

a national organization, I would like to describe just a bit the fact

that it is not isolated to just the states represented at this table.

There are airport closures or airports under threat of closure in the

back country area in states like Oregon, California. And in my

written testimony, I have given you a list of those airports that we

are currently trying to save.

At the same time, let me take you to the 49th state, up in Alaska, where Mt. McKinley Airport, a critical airport in terms of safety, in terms of a single-engine plane losing an engine, has been

under threat of attack for about the last two to 3 years. Though

every case is different, we at AOPA feel that proposals to restrict

aviation access to federally managed lands are generally inappropriate.

General aviation pilots, my members, do not seek to hinder the

experience of anyone taking advantage of the recreational opportunities in these parks, in these forests, or these wilderness areas. As

a matter of fact, most GA pilots fly over or land in these areas because they share this same appreciation for the environment. As

part of our members’ efforts to preserve the experience of ground

visitors, we have encouraged and we know that our members successfully use a voluntary overflight minimum of 2,000 feet whenever going over any of these federally or state-managed lands.

General aviation contributes positively to the recreational experience. You know, our pilots do not leave behind clutter, clogged

roads, or physical damage at the area. As a matter of fact, you will

hear that pilots actually help to improve these areas. And compared to other sources of noise and disturbance that visitors may

experience in national parks, forests, and wilderness area, aviation

brings very little noise. But we do need these strips also for emergency use as you have already heard.

We also do not create the noise that recreational vehicles, buses,

motorcycles and others use. If I could take just a moment and give

you a little home video that I shot when I was in one of our national parks just last September. Enjoy the serenity, the beauty of

Yellowstone National Park, for instance. By the way, I drove. And

looking at scenes like this, once again, airplanes flying 2,000 feet

or more above the airport not being heard; but suddenly, in the

parking lot, just steps away from that scene I was showing you—

I could not help but say, ‘‘and they worry about airplane noise over

national parks.’’ At any rate, aviation provides those physically unable, as you heard, to enjoy the pleasures of our national parks.

You know, as with any restrictions, limits on access by aircraft

should be justified by hard data, such as a record of frequent complaints by wilderness users, not simply the perceptions of a few activists. I have testified in Chairman Duncan’s committee about

22

many calls that are received at our domestic, regular urban airports. Most of these calls boil down to three or four people who are

complaining, even though they may log 100 or so calls each. Studies, and they are in my written testimony, have shown that airplanes do not impair the national park visitors, affect the quality

of their experience.

And once again, back country airports are so vital for the emergency use of airplanes. There are about 195,000 active civil aviation airplanes in the U.S.; 135,000 fly with a single engine. Now,

if the single engine fails, those of us who are pilots all know, we

become a glider pilot. And generally, in states like this, or anywhere in the eastern part of the country, in much of the country,

we can glide the landing in a field or find an airstrip nearby. But

that is not the case, as a matter of fact, when you are over states

represented here like Idaho and Utah, or some of the other states

where these back country airports exist.

I would like to demonstrate for you a trip that I took to Idaho,

as a matter of fact, just a few years ago; a wonderful trip in which

we were going to use a single-engine airplane to fly around in this

kind of rugged terrain. I think it might be good for the committee

to also look at the kind of airstrip we are talking about here. This

is not one with a huge terminal, with large facilities, with parking

facilities, et cetera. This is truly an approach to Thomas Creek, one

of the back country airstrips we are talking about.

Well, when we landed, we suddenly discovered that a group of

people down at the far end of that runway were going to need our

help. Why? Because one of these charter aircraft that we described

earlier, that carries passengers for hire, lost its engine over that

rugged terrain with passengers on board. Just about an hour before

our arrival, it had glided to a safe landing—wonderful pilot skills,

I might say—and actually went off the road that abuts to that

small airport. And this is a picture of us pushing that airplane out.

All the passengers, the pilot, and everyone walked away from that

accident. What would have happened had that back country airport

not been there to use when this plane had actually one of its cylinders go through the side of the engine?

I would like you to refer to my written testimony for the remainder, but I would like to say that we encourage support of this general aviation access bill. You have correctly identified that there is

an agency in this country that is responsible for our airspace, that

is the Federal Aviation Administration. This bill does not take

away from their authority over airspace, but it also involves local

community, states, to participate in the process, and we support

that in a big way. We believe this is a reasonable approach to a

problem that continues to exist with our nation’s back country airports.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Boyer follows:]

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Boyer. We have a lot of folks standing. We are not going to use this bottom tier. If you want to come

up and sit in it, you are welcome to do it. If you do not find that

too intimidating, come on up.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. These are students from

Calvin Coolidge High School in the District of Columbia, here to

learn about the Congress of the United States.

Mr. HANSEN. Well, I am glad they could be with us today, Ms.

Norton, and we are happy to have them join us.

Our last witness on this panel is Mr. Steve Durtschi from

Centerville, Utah, an adjoining town of my town of Farmington.

Mr. Durtschi, it is a pleasure to see you again, sir, and we will turn

the time to you.

STATEMENT OF STEVE DURTSCHI

Mr. DURTSCHI. Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to address this committee. My name is Steve Durtschi. I work as a Process Engineer on solid rocket propellants for a defense contractor in

Salt Lake City. I am also a commercial and instrument-rated pilot.

I am here today representing the Utah Back Country Pilots Association. The UBCP has a membership of 325 pilots and enthusiasts

in Utah and surrounding states. Our mission statement is to firstly

promote air safety. We also serve as a volunteer group in maintaining and enhancing the safety at more remote airports. Many of the

thoughts which I present here today are those suggested as I canvassed our group in preparing this testimony.

I wish I could convey in just a few minutes, the time allotted to

me, the passion for and enjoyment my family and I have realized

over the years in being able to access some of the scenic beauty of

the west in our airplane. If we won a trip to Disneyland today, we

would most certainly trade it for one night in our tent under the

wing after burnt hamburger and semi-raw potatoes cooked in tin

foil. We have been most fortunate in being able to roll our wheels

from manicured grass strips in the mountains to dusty runways in

red rock canyons.

Idaho has some two dozen of these landing strips in wilderness

areas alone. The Frank Church River of No Return and the

Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness areas both contain public landing

strips open to private airplanes. Many of these are maintained in

safe operating condition by public volunteers. This area of Idaho

has become a show place for the nation, demonstrating how some

of the most sensitive lands in the west can be managed in pristine

condition for hundreds of generations and yet still allow public access.

The deserts and canyon country of Utah also contain a handful

of airports that beckon the back country aviator. Our Director of

state Aeronautics, Mr. Barrett, has spoken of their obvious value

for search and rescue efforts and the peace of mind the cross-country traveler feels as they quietly slide under the wing during a long

trip in otherwise very unfriendly airplane terrain. To me and many

other pilots, they are a treasure; a resource to our state, and deserve defending.

Unfortunately, these landing strips are under attack. As an example, many of my friends and I used the landing strip at Taylor

30

Flat on the Green River. There were no complaints concerning its

use. In 1997, a sign was posted at the entrance to the strip that

said, in part, ‘‘Due to lack of interest and a qualified applicant to

maintain the strip, the Taylor Flat Landing Strip is closed.’’

Daggett County officials notified the BLM they would immediately

perform any required maintenance on the landing strip and would

maintain any required liability insurance. The Utah pilots group

supplied data to show there was hardly a lack of interest in this

strip and that it was being used and had been used by many people.

The BLM conducted an Environmental Impact Statement and

found no significant impacts. During the public comment period, to

my knowledge, not one dissenting letter was registered with the

BLM, while dozens were sent desiring to keep the strip open. The

BLM supervisor denied all requests to use the airfield, citing his

desire to not sacrifice five acres os sage brush. A grader was dispatched and several deep gouges cut, rendering the strip useless.

With slight variation, the story has been the same at other Utah

locations. With no advance notice, the BLM used heavy equipment

to drag logs across the landing field at Dolores Point. The Mexican

Mountain Landing Strip, now inside the Mexican Mountain Wilderness Study Area, has been continuously used by pilots since it was

constructed in 1960. The U.S. Department of Interior’s own pamphlet, entitled, Protecting Your Wilderness Study Areas, says that

any activities conducted prior to the passage of the Federal land

Policy Management Act of 1976 are grandfathered and allowed to

continue. But the BLM has indicated they will cite any pilot now

using the landing strip. I should mention, I have no axe to grind

with the BLM. I believe they are responding to a few vocal environmentalist groups, and I emphasize that point.

Attacks on Utah landing strips come from other camps. In 1999,

after resolving every potential issue over a period of almost 2

years, the BLM Environmental Impact Statements found no significant impact and issued a right of way lease for the landing strip

at Mineral Canyon. Extremist groups immediately filed lawsuits,

which persist from every legal angle to this day, even though the

airport is not on what even they consider to be lands with wilderness character. I could cite similar attacks on airport closures in

California and Idaho.

I mentioned earlier my passion for flight and what a great privilege it is to combine this with my love of the outdoors. Aviation has

been a source of national pride for nearly a century. Aviation has

been the currency with which we purchased our technological dominance. My heroes are Jimmy Dolittle, Neil Armstrong and Roscoe

Turner. My love for aviation is interwoven with the basic desire all

share to be in open space. The freedom to move about

unencumbered is irresistible, and I treasure it equally. I recently

read that after a 10-year review, a man in Shanghai, the People’s

Republic of China, was issued a private pilot’s license. This brings

the total private pilots in China to 41. It is little wonder there is

a difference between our two countries.

I consider the airplane to be well-suited to visit sensitive lands.

Consider that it does not leave a rutted landscape, nor does it

graze its way from place to place. Only footprints leave the airfield.

31

A few years ago, we were camped at Chamberlain Basin near the

Salmon River in Idaho. The early morning silence was broken by

a Cessna 206, followed by another, and then another. As I watched

curiously, about 12 young people were unloaded and helped into

wheelchairs. For perhaps an hour, they had their own wilderness

experience, some blowing into tubes to maneuver their chairs on

the runway. These youngsters could have visited this wilderness in

no other way. I later learned the airplanes were flown by volunteers.

H.R. 3661 will preserve this privilege to visit the back country.

We are bound as pilots by Federal Air Regulations any time we operate an airplane at these fields. Why not give these airports the

Federal protection they deserve?

A key ingredient to this bill is the public involvement it fosters.

As a recently initiated couple to the political process, my wife and

I are proud to represent our neighbors at the county convention in

April. Our party platform reads in part, ‘‘We believe that citizens’

needs are best met through private initiative and volunteerism.’’

The Utah Back Country Pilots could not agree more. We do not

believe in entitlements. As pilots who love the outdoors, the government does not owe us a thing. We simply ask that they mandate

some guidelines and then politely step aside. Many groups such as

ours ask only for the opportunity to roll up their sleeves, put their

talents and wallets where their hearts are. This bill will allow just

that. The public is at the ready to adopt these landing strips and

maintain them in safe operating condition. The State of Idaho has

a program similar to this that has operated for years.

The Utah Back Country Pilots Association supports H.R. 3661.

As I have shown, the laws governing these landing strips at

present are inadequate and open to individual interpretation by

many agencies. This bill will bring these strips all under one management team. It is a rational and sensible way to manage airports

on public lands. I sincerely hope this committee will thoughtfully

consider this matter and expedite signing it into law. Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Durtschi follows:]

32

33

34

35

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Durtschi. Questions for this panel,

the Chairman of the Aviation Committee, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me just

first ask the panel, one of government witnesses later implies or

testifies that a great deal of confusion, almost near chaos, will result because the words, landing strip, or what the landing strip is,

is not defined in this bill. He spends a great deal of time in his testimony concerning that. Although I know the Park Service currently uses the words, landing sites, are in its management policy,

and the aircraft landing strips in its regulations.

Do any of you feel there is uncertainty or confusion about what

we are talking about here or what the words, landing strip, means

in this legislation?

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Duncan, there certainly is no confusion among

pilots as to what it means. Those pilots who would use the back

country strips, either for emergencies or for recreation, have no

doubt in their minds what is implied by the words, landing strip.

They are unimproved and there are no services available. There

are usually no roads available, and it is a safe place to put their

plane down in an emergency.

Mr. DUNCAN. I guess I would not have been as concerned about

that if there was not so much of his testimony spent on that point.

Mr. Durtschi, do you think there is any confusion?

Mr. DURTSCHI. No, not at all. In fact, our pilots group over the

last 3 years has inventoried what we consider to be all of the landing strips in Utah. We have data on these, we have photographs,

we have mapped them and charted them, measured their length,

and described their condition. I believe they are all inventoried. I

think one of the key ingredients of the bill will be it involves the

public in deciding which ones now do we manage, which ones do

we save.

Mr. DUNCAN. I might suggest, if you have not done so, that you

provide that to the government agencies involved. But let me ask

you this, the witness from the Forest Service also will testify later

that there has been a very active—there is a formal decision process with full public involvement when closing airstrips. Has there

been and do your pilots feel there has been adequate public involvement in these decisions?

Mr. DURTSCHI. No, not at all. As I mentioned, the logs were drug

with heavy equipment at the Dolores Point Strip with absolutely

no notice, no public involvement whatsoever.

Mr. DUNCAN. You say there is no public involvement whatsoever?

Mr. DURTSCHI. Not on that particular case. There was an EIS

and a full-blown Environmental Impact Statement at the Taylor

Landing Strip. That EIS found no significant impact and then the

supervisor at the BLM office mandated this strip was closed with

no other rational other than he did not want to sacrifice the sage

brush, so that there was some public involvement there.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, let me ask the panel this. The Administration

tells us that these landing strips are primarily intended for the

agency’s use and not for the public’s use. If an agency no longer

needs these strips, do you think it is fair to ask them to pay to

maintain them or does anyone on the panel feel that it would be

fair to ask the general aviation pilot community or the state aviaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:09 Nov 29, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 J:\67552.TXT HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
36

tion agencies involved to pay fees or some of the cost to help the

government defray the cost of upkeep on these strips? What do you

say in that regard, Mr. Boyer?

Mr. BOYER. Well, Mr. Chairman, the pilots are already, as you

have heard, doing a lot to maintain these strips. I think we should,

based on the videotaped example, remind everyone that the maintenance of these strips is certainly not like the maintenance of normal concrete/asphalt runways. Getting these ready at the beginning of the season, keeping them clean is just an ongoing effort

that pilots do when they use them, and then perhaps a shut down

at the beginning of the fall or winter season is all that is required

on these airports. And in many cases, volunteer organizations are

doing it now.

In addition, I think that with the passage of this Act, a lot more

attention could be brought to assisting in that manner. In terms

of any fees to use these airports, the same way that when we drove

to Yellowstone, we paid a fairly substantial fee to enter the park,

probably could be done, and there are those of us, as you have

heard, with the passion to use them. But the efficiency of collecting

such fees probably would not amount to the few aircraft that are

going to use them, and we would have another government program collecting money, and it would cost more to collect it. But

there are a lot of local solutions to the maintenance problem that

you bring up.

And then in terms of our national transportation system, where

these airports do provide—and I would cite Mt. McKinley as a good

example, a safe harbor for an airplane that is in trouble—there

may be a way to look at the use of AIP funding in terms of keeping

a certain number of these up and our association would lobby heavily in that regard.

Mr. DUNCAN. My time is up, but let me just—I may have missed

this, but let me very quickly ask you. Mr. Boyer mentioned that

California and other states are involved in this also in addition to

Utah, Idaho and several others. Maybe I missed this, but did somebody say how many back country airstrips we are talking about in

total? Does anybody know the exact number?

Mr. WELSH. Mr. Chairman, I can answer your question as no, I

do not believe we do. But in Idaho, we have some fifty different

strips, and they arrange in a variety of skilled and aircraft needed

to get into some of them and so forth, but the maintenance is in

few cases not a problem. We typically cooperate with the Forest

Service and set up a work party on a particular weekend. And they

have their staff there that can direct and lead, and we can get, easily, volunteer pilots to come in and do the physical labor. That is

a cooperative system that has been in place for years, and years,

and years, working very well.

As Mr. Boyer points out, these are not strips that need to be

asphalted every 2 years or something, and the users of them all

have the best interest of the airstrip in mind. And so when I go

in with my aircraft into one of these strips, I generally walk the

strip, and look for rocks, and if there are little bushes or something

that are in the way, and every other pilot does the same thing. So

these are strips that periodically do need major maintenance, and

37

we schedule that kind of work. We do it, but it is not something

that is an ongoing financial crisis.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, that is a good system. I wish we had more

cooperation between the private sector and government agencies

throughout the Federal Government. Thank you very much.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Boswell.

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I suppose in fairness,

I should tell you that maybe I should be sitting at the other table,

because I associate myself with the remarks and so on. I confess

I am an airplane owner/operator and a member of the AOPA. But

I just want to emphasize some points.

We spend a lot of money, those of us that fly and people we fly

with. At least, I feel like we do every time I pull up to the gas

pump, and the taxes are involved, and we are willing to do that

for the maintenance of things of this nature. I do not know if any

of you have ever been a small aircraft flying situation. We all understand if the engine fails, you have got to get on the ground.

They are going to become gliders, as was already said. But you

know, you get a kind of a funny feeling when you have got a little

rough engine, too.

And one thing that we train pilots from the beginning is you are

always conscious of where you go in case you have a problem. And

if you do not have access to these strips, and we all understand

what the strips are in areas like this. It would be taking a lot away

in the sense of safety and just good old common sense, it seems to

me. So I associate myself with the remarks of our panel and would

hope that we would begin using a liberal application of common

sense here, and I think we will do the right thing.

Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate the gentleman’s comments. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr, Simpson.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the panel’s

comments, too, and I appreciate the fact that these back country

strips are there for safety purposes as much as anything. And

when I took my flying lessons, I knew that when you flew across

Idaho, you, generally, were not flying across very much flat ground.

And so I knew where every piece of flat land was plus everyone of

these back country airstrips, and it provided a great deal of satisfaction to me to know that they were there.

I guess the one question I would have is that you mentioned that

sometimes the airline pilot association or groups, these people will

take over the maintenance of some of these airports. Who takes

over in that situation, who is responsible for the liability if something were to happen, if an accident or something were to happen

in that case? Would it be the Federal Government whose land this

is on or the private people who have taken over the maintenance

of them, or the state, or who? I will ask that of anyone who would

like to answer.

Mr. WELSH. Mr. Simpson, I am not sure I have the answer to it

either. I know the State of Idaho, as you know, we own 30 airports,

and I do not think there is any way to get out of the liability when

you are the owner. Although, we do not have lawsuits. It just does

not happen. Now, I suppose it could happen. I think only of one incident where we had an aircraft damaged that the owner felt that

it was our fault. We had a chuckhole in the area and his airplane

38

fell in that chuckhole and damaged it rather substantially. Fortunately, he was taxiing, he was not landing or taking off. We agreed

with him and we paid for it. But it is simply these—it does not

seem to be any kind of a groundswell effort to sue people over back

country airstrips.

Mr. SIMPSON. Would it be true to say that most of the people who

fly into these back country airstrips realize that sometimes these

are not going to be in the greatest of shape and, therefore, they

take precautions to make sure when they have been maintained

and so forth?

Mr. WELSH. I think that is absolutely right. We do run as a state

activity, training programs for people, on how to fly safely in the

back country. We encourage anyone to come back in there to go

through those training programs. The records that we have kept is

that we have an outstanding safety record of those people that

have done that. The unfortunate part is that people who have some

difficulties back there, tend to be people coming from other states,

have not had the training, and will get into difficulties.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Boyer.

Mr. BOYER. Well, I was going to mention that I was not flying

the plane that I had in that videotape, because I am not trained

for that, and it is a unique experience, as you well know, going into

some of these airports. As a pilot of almost 5,000 hours, I will hold

my breath on that approach to that airport.

Your question about lability is a good one, so I think we are dealing with very trained pilots, mainly, going into these places. The

second thing is, in cases of emergency, let us say, in a liability, the

only other place is, as you mentioned, probably the road that you

spotted down there. And there is going to be a question there if

somebody gets a lawyer and wants to really go to work on the

owner there, too.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you.

Mr. DURTSCHI. Could I address how we handled that on one airstrip in Utah?

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.

Mr. DURTSCHI. The BLM issued a commercial right of way on the

landing field at Mineral Canyon to two operators, Redtail Aviation

out of Moab and Mountain Flying Service out of Monticello. These

operators jointly maintain a liability insurance policy in order to

use that strip commercially. The back country group is named as

the airport manager, and we are responsible for the ongoing maintenance and upkeep of the landing strip. But those two entities

that wish to use the strip commercially to haul rafters in, maintain

a liability insurance policy that names the Federal Government as

the insured.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you very much. Well, Phil, as soon as I saw

that videobox there, I knew you had another video to show us.

Your testimony at a hearing would not be complete without your

monitor. It is amazing the places you manage to be at just the appropriate time.

Can anybody on the panel answer a question for me, what standards do you expect these strips to be kept up to? In reading over

39

the bill, I cannot really ascertain what standards we are going to,

you know, expect these fields to be in. Can anybody answer that

question for me?

Mr. BARRETT. I think that the standard that these airstrips need

to be maintained to is whatever it takes for the pilot to be able to

land safely and take off safely. And in most cases, it does not mean

meeting a particular length and breadth of runway or safety areas,

that it simply is up to the pilot to decide whether that airstrip is

up to the standards that meet his aircraft, and his experience and

skills. In Utah, we mark these strips on the chart as for emergency

use. But that does not prohibit people from using them on a more

frequent basis, or intentional basis, if they have the skills and the

right kind of equipment to do so.

Mr. LIPINSKI. But do not you think with, now, passing the bill

and formalizing this, and putting the Forest Service—I will not

say, in charge, but at least having the ultimate responsibility for

these strips, do not you think that we are going to have to set some

kind of standards at least? You are shaking your head no.

Mr. DURTSCHI. No. Each of these landing strips stands on its own

merits, just as Bob said. A fellow by the name of Gayland

Hassleman wrote and published the bible on the idea of back country landing strips. In that book, he has a photograph of each strip,

what he calls an RHI, Runway Hazard Index. He talks about

egress, go around potential length of the strip, and has a little formula. Each landing strip has a number that he has come up with.

That is his subjective—that is how he has it.

Mr. LIPINSKI. You are saying that he has written a book on all

of these landing strips?

Mr. DURTSCHI. The ones in Idaho, yes.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Oh, the ones in Idaho. OK. Because I thought

maybe you might be the man to ask the question, how many strips

does this legislation cover, because no one seems to be able to give

us an answer on that.

Mr. DURTSCHI. I can tell you what that is in Utah. We have identified about a dozen.

Mr. LIPINSKI. There is a dozen in Utah. How many in Idaho?

Mr. WELSH. We believe there are around 50, and the reason I am

a little vague with you is there are strips back there that are

owned by private individuals that we do not have anything to do

with, but they exist back there. But there are around 50 strips that

can be accessed this way.

I might add on the maintenance, that there are often times we

think of an airport, the maintenance has to do with the landing

surface. But in back country strips, there is another hazard, and

that is the shrubbery and greenery growing up around it. And so

we work to keep that clear so the approach can be safe and so forth

on that. So it is a little more than just the dirt. Obviously, there

is winter erosion that needs to be taken care of and that kind of

stuff.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Philip, you were going to say something?

Mr. BOYER. Yes. I think we will take that as an IOU, Congressman. We will provide you, from our national data base, the number

of airports that are covered by this legislation.

40

Mr. LIPINSKI. Now, Phil, wait a second. These are airstrips, they

are not airports. Correct?

Mr. BOYER. This is the back country airstrips that, we will provide you a number that matches the 50 in Idaho, the ones that

were mentioned by others, but we will do it on a national basis.

Mr. LIPINSKI. That would really be very helpful, and I think everyone needs to know exactly what this legislation is going to cover

as far as strips. I understand that in Idaho you have similar state

legislation to 3661. Is that correct?

Mr. WELSH. That is correct.

Mr. LIPINSKI. How do you determine, because there was testimony here earlier about a strip that existed in the 1930’s, and

maybe into the 1940’s, and that it was overgrown. And then in the

1990’s, you decided to, you know, reclaim it from the wilderness.

How do you make a determination on, you know, what you are

going to reclaim, what you are going to stop and be throwing back

to the wilderness, and what you are going to allow to go back in

the wilderness. Do you have any criteria for that?

Mr. WELSH. There is no specific criteria on that, but when the

Act came in, it specified that the existing strips would remain in

place, and that is what we use, were they in existence when the

Act came in. And the Wilson Bar Strip that I mentioned earlier

was in existence. And so therefore, when we got down into working

with the Forest Service, it became obvious, it existed before even

though it had had some difficulties in terms of overgrowth; it was

not being used as often. It did qualify, therefore, we cooperated, we

straightened it out, we put it back in service. There are no strips

coming back in that were not in service at the time of the Act coming in. This Act, as proposed, is the same language we have and

is to preserve what exists today.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, would you indulge me just for 30

seconds more? I see my time is——

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman is recognized.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Are there situations where if the plane lands in an

area one time, that you wind up designating that, you know, as an

official airstrip and you keep it in operation after that? I mean, it

seems like in reading the bill, the potential exists that if Phil is out

there flying around with his video camera and he sees an area that

could be a good spot for an airstrip, he will decide to go down there

and land there so he can go back and say this is an airstrip, we

have got to keep it open. I mean, how many times do you have to

land, or how many times does it have to be an airstrip before, you

know, this legislation is going to cause it to be kept in perpetuity?

Mr. WELSH. I happen to be one of the trained pilots, and I train

people how to do this and so forth. And I can say pretty safely, in

the State of Idaho, all the appropriate places to land aircraft are

now strips. There are not a lot of other places. And as I taken my

students around, I make sure that they have the mark on their

chart right where they are. There are some riverbanks and so

forth, you can do as we call one landing, but we kind of like to use

the airplane again and so I do not believe that is an ongoing problem at this point.

Mr. LIPINSKI. All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman,

thank you for the time.

41

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.

Sherwood.

Mr. SHERWOOD. Listening to this discussion, it sounds to me that

you are asking us to help you preserve the status quo. You are not

asking for any new strips, you are not asking for any exotic maintenance, and the liability deal is a little bit like if I decide I am

going rafting on a river, the Federal Government owns the river,

but I have to use my own good judgment. They are not certifying

it is safe. So what I would think is what you said about you will

give us an IOU on an inventory. I would think that would be pretty

important because if there is an inventory, then you know what the

status quo is to preserve. And it would eliminate the issue that was

just raised about using this as an excuse to create new strips.

And the issues that we are trying to balance are your rights to

aviation and your rights to enjoy the back country with what other

people think might be a little intrusive. And so it seems to me the

policy of the country is not to build more use, but you are asking

us to institutionalize what you have had, and that seems sort of

reasonable to me.

Mr. WELSH. I think it is reasonable to us, too.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentlelady from California.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Boyer, how

many landing strips does H.R. 3661 cover?

Mr. BOYER. Well, I think we just talked about that. I do not

think we have an accurate number, and that is the IOU I promised

the committees.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. I am sorry. I must have stepped out a minute.

Mr. BOYER. That, I would provide, yes. I think that is a good—

we have it by some of the states represented here, probably Idaho

being the most robust in terms of these strips, but we will provide

the committee with those.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Have you had any problems identified with any

illegal operations?

Mr. WELSH. We have not in Idaho. Again, these are very, very

rural remote areas, and it does not lend itself to a drop-off place

to pick up anything, something like that. You can only get in there

one way and get back out the same way. So it does not lend itself—

we have not had, to my knowledge, any difficulty like that.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Is there a specific reason why the environmentalists or the activists want them closed other than the noise

factor?

Mr. WELSH. I have to simply share my opinion, and I think that

as we work with them, there is a general tendency to want to keep

out any mechanized piece of equipment, and aircraft is obviously

mechanized, that the feeling is that there is something more pure,

or more kosher, or more something if one walks in there, looks at

the beauty of our state, it is better than if one flies in there, that

sort of thing. It is a general feeling that this is intrusive in that

way.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. But the intrusion is limited to the airfield, the

landing strip. You are not necessarily making new roads or trying

to encroach further into the pristine area. Is that right?

Mr. WELSH. No. We have done some observation with pilots over

the years, and to be absolutely honest, pilots are kind of lazy, and

42

they tend to camp right next to the airplane. They do not tend to

march five miles into the woods. And so we find that there is very

little movement away from the airstrip itself. It just is there, it is

just a place to go. There are some of our strips, we have developed

with campgrounds around them and fire rings, those kinds of

things. Some are in areas that is not permitted, and they are not

there. But it does not seem to be any movement from there beyond,

nor do we have any interest to build roads or make them.

We have one strip that we are quite proud of, and I have never

actually measured this, but I am told it is 50 miles from the nearest four-wheel drive road, and that is a very remote strip, and we

are very glad it is remote. And you can believe me there, and you

can even watch game and moose and walk through the area in

total silence. It is very, very nice. And the only way you get there

is a long, long walk or by aircraft.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Now, given the inaccessible areas maybe even

the seasons, would you say that a lot of these are not available during the winter, or the rains, or—I guess what I am trying to get

is the usage versus the perceived, or at least what I can read, encroachment.

Mr. BOYER. I would definitely say you are absolutely correct.

There are no snow plowing facilities and most of these are in areas

that there is snow. They are really late spring and, obviously,

damp weather is going to prohibit the use of those strips that are

not paved. So in many cases these are fair weather operations during late spring, summer, early fall.

Mr. BARRETT. And strictly daylight operations for the most part

also. It would be impossible to get in and out with no lighting facilities.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. So there is no way that you can put any jeopardy on the landing strip by attaching fire to the brush around it?

Mr. WELSH. No. There is no big fire danger with them at all. I

would be remiss if I did not add one program that we are very

proud of, and we call that Access to Wilderness, where we fly in

physically handicapped adults and children back into some of our

strips. We have volunteer pilots that do that and it is an exciting

day. They pick up people in wheelchairs and put them in airplanes

and take them some place that there is simply no other way they

could get there. So we are delighted with that program.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Do you have any capping on the number of

flights that any particular airfield might have during a given day?

Mr. WELSH. This is something that we in the State of Idaho are

working on very hard to try to identify. We are working with a person developing a piece of equipment to try to do that, because we

would like to know the answer to that also. Some of the strips are

real obvious, and we have four of our strips that, state-owned

strips, that we have staff there during the summertime to help people and so forth. And they, obviously, can count the number of airplanes that come in and out.

We have one particular strip we do not own, but it will be—that

is used a lot for access for floaters, and there are people there, and

we have pretty good numbers on that one. The other strips, we do

not. And we do a lot of estimates on that, and most of our estiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:09 Nov 29, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 J:\67552.TXT HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
43

mates run anywhere from one to two flights a week to one to two

flights a day. These are not heavily used strips.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Would you kindly just when you make a report

to this committee in regard to the number of airfields, would you

make some notes of some of the more used strips?

Mr. WELSH. I would be glad to provide that, but with the recognition that we are struggling with that ourselves.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right. Thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me

say that I certainly applaud you at this effort on this legislation.

And I join these gentlemen here at the table as well in their support of this legislation.

As someone who probably has as much time in an airplane as

anyone here with nearly 22,000 hours flying time, both as a private

pilot instructor, as a commercial pilot, as a military pilot, I truly

find the significance and the importance of these small unimproved

landing airstrips in the district that I represent to be incredibly important. The Second Congressional District of Nevada is about 600

miles wide by about 800 miles long. It is very difficult to access by

car without taking several days to reverse it. And often times we

have used airplanes and found very comforting the fact that there

are emergency landing strips, little areas that we would have access to.

And most of the time we focus on the fact that these are emergency landing strips for airplanes that are in distress when, in fact,

often times in the district that I have the great fortune to represent, these strips are access for emergency services to be provided to the communities or to the residents within the local area.

It is not unusual to find a ranch or a homestead somewhere in

these rural areas that may be four or 5 hours by vehicle from the

nearest medical center; in other words, a car. An injury to someone

on one of these rural ranches often times requires either someone

to fly there to provide a medical service or for them to fly out if

they are going to even save the life of that individual. So the small

rural strips can be ‘‘lifesaving’’ to the people on the ground who depend upon them as well as to pilots in the air who may inadvertently have the unfortunate problem of having something go wrong

with the aircraft.

My question probably is—my concern is going to go more to the

next panel—but I wanted to talk to somebody about—and maybe

you can talk to me here—about the Dolores Point Landing Strip.

Now, is that in Utah?

Mr. DURTSCHI. No. It is actually in Colorado. It is along—it overlooks the Dolores River, about a half-mile inside Colorado.

Mr. GIBBONS. OK. My concern is that it is a longstanding, long

used rural airstrip, that without warning the Bureau of Land Management used heavy machinery to drag logs onto the strip. Now,

if I were a pilot who may have realized or not realized that I was

going to need that strip, and had relied on the fact, not knowing

that the BLM had intentionally destroyed access to that strip, had

an emergency and eventually chose that strip from the air, being

unable to make any other determination or fly anywhere else—

after all, in some of these places you have to be in outer space if

44

you want to go between paved runways, if you have got a glide

ratio that will permit.

But if I had used this strip without adequate notice, without a

note being placed by the government that they dragged logs across

it and closed it, let me say that I do believe the liability would go

to the Federal Government for intentionally destroying access to

one of these strips. I would ask any of you gentlemen if you would

feel the same way, or if notice should have been published, and if

this is something that is going to be a continual problem with the

government in their arrogance even to the laws that we have

passed, mandating some of these airports remain open.

Mr. BOYER. Well, I think once again, the Act providing some Federal aviation administration oversight, which is where this belonged, is critical. We have a charting process of every 6 months

or sectional charge, the state’s publish charts on them, some of the

states on an annual basis, others infrequently. And the problem is

some of these things that you are talking about occur in between

the charting cycles and, therefore, even with a chart in hand that

shows an emergency strip, the actual thing that you talked about

could have happened.

And I provided in my written testimony, we have a letter from

a member in Bend, Oregon, who cited support of the bill for the

very reason you said. He is a member of the Civil Air Patrol,

Search and Rescue. Two hikers were lost. Now, yes, they could

have gone some distance away, obtained a helicopter, gotten into

the strip, but that would have been a very time-consuming situation. With the airstrip handy, these people which, fortunately, were

found, was a critical factor in rescuing somebody who had nothing

to do with the aviation recreation or business part.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Minnesota, the ranking member of the full Transportation Committee,

Mr. Oberstar.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is good

to join you on the podium here to participate with you an issue of

this significance. I have a few brief questions. Are all these landing

strips approved by the Federal land manager?

Mr. WELSH. No, they are not.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Are any of them in trespass?

Mr. WELSH. I am sorry. Say again?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Are any of them in trespass; that is, they are not

approved, then they are potentially in trespass on Federal lands.

Mr. WELSH. Their location is approved in that case, but what I

was using, a term or close to it, the approval, they do not meet the

standards——

Mr. OBERSTAR. I am not talking about standards. I am talking

about the existence of the strip.

Mr. WELSH. The existence of the strip is approved, yes.

Mr. OBERSTAR. In each case?

Mr. WELSH. In each case.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Again, do you know of any where there is a strip

that is used, that it has just been a customary strip used by aviators but not necessarily approved by Federal land managers?

45

Mr. DURTSCHI. My understanding of the rules and regulations, at

least in Utah, are that the BLM treats the airplane as any other

off-road vehicle. As such, it has the right to use any road, any landing strip, be it little used or not, with impunity. In order to operate

commercially from that strip; in other words, to bring people in and

out for hire during tourist season, the BLM would request that the

airplane owner acquire a right of way or a commercial lease on the

landing strip.

Mr. OBERSTAR. OK. I infer from previous exchange that there is

no standard for determining, verifying, certifying the condition of

those airstrips. Is that correct?

Mr. WELSH. That is correct.

Mr. OBERSTAR. How does an aviator know it is safe to land on

any one of those? Just because it has been used?

Mr. WELSH. I think it behooves an aviator in these strips, as any

other airport in the nation, that I, as a pilot, have limitations on

my skills and abilities. My aircraft has limitations on its abilities.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, but that does not apply when you are flying

into a paved general aviation airport or into a general aviation

grass strip that has met the FAA standards or that is part of

NPIAS use. None of these are part of the NPIAS use.

Mr. BOYER. I think, Congressman, the FAR’s cover that in terms

of being a pilot. Familiarize yourself with all aspects of the flight

you are embarking on. And an aspect of that flight is the airport

that you are going to depart or land from, along with the weather

and the other regulations. And so a pilot has to brief himself or

herself on the particular parameters around that airport. I know

the book that was referred to earlier with the pictures and the——

Mr. OBERSTAR. But Phil, do aviators who are not residents—I

can understand that of natives of the state who are familiar with

and use with some frequency those facilities. But if you are not

from the state, if you are flying in, you have the understanding

that there are grass strips, you can use them, how do you know?

For you to familiarize—what do you use? What source of information do you use to know that this is a safe place to land?

Mr. BOYER. Hundreds of these books are sold each year, normally, to people outside of the state. Normally, people who want

to——

Mr. OBERSTAR. These are all listed, all these strips are listed in

this book?

Mr. BOYER. They are listed, yes. And usually, parameters that

are made up, and the Internet is providing us with——

Mr. OBERSTAR. Can you give me one of those?

Mr. BOYER. Yes, I would. I would love to give you the one from

Idaho, which is a fantastic book.

Mr. OBERSTAR. All of these strips are on Federal lands. Is that

correct?

Mr. DURTSCHI. No. Some are on state land.

Mr. OBERSTAR. All of the strips covered by this pending legislation are on Federal lands?

Mr. DURTSCHI. No. That is not correct. Some are on state, school

trust lands in Utah.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Why is there no differentiation in the legislation

then?

46

Mr. DURTSCHI. I do not see that there needs to be.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, why should the state have a role in determining the status of an airstrip on Federal land?

Mr. BARRETT. Because the interest of the state in support of the

flying public in that state is that those strips ought to be accessible

by those pilots. If the BLM or the Forest Service wants to without

warning——

Mr. OBERSTAR. Does the state have any regulatory authority over

those strips?

Mr. BARRETT. No, they do not.

Mr. OBERSTAR. OK. Thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Moran.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity of joining your committee. Are these airstrips, back country

airstrips, shown on charts that pilots use. If you are flying across

the country, you have got the chart that shows these airstrips as

in existence?

Mr. WELSH. Yes, they are.

Mr. MORAN. And is it generally local traffic that is utilizing these

airstrips or would it be more likely that it is people who are flying

cross-country—is there a differentiation?

Mr. BARRETT. Mostly, it is local, but we get requests frequently

from people from out of state who want us to send a copy of our

state aeronautical chart so that they can see where these landing

strips are, whether it is because of emergency preparation or because they intend to land there, we do not know. But mostly, it is

local people who use them, you know, from our state or a surrounding state.

Mr. MORAN. But does a pilot access the chart in what way? How

do you get a chart if I am flying across Utah, I am a pilot, and I

want to know where the strips are?

Mr. BARRETT. We get a lot of requests by e-mail, by telephone for

them. We also distribute them through all of the airports, the public use airports in the state, and we make them available to anyone

who wants one free of charge.

Mr. MORAN. Does the chart differentiate the quality of these airstrips? Is there some designation on the chart that describes the

condition?

Mr. BARRETT. In Utah, the chart designates that they are primarily for emergency use, however, we have taken a number of

them which have been specifically upgraded by the Back Country

Pilots and brought up to a safer condition, we have indicated those

in our airport directory and put considerably more detail.

Mr. MORAN. And are the efforts by Federal agencies to restrict

or prohibit the use of these airstrips, is this a national policy that

is being implemented or is it simply decisions made by Federal officials locally within their jurisdiction?

Mr. WELSH. Our experience in Idaho has been local, that we have

found some of the Forest Service personnel are pilots and they are

simply on board with us right off the bat. There are others that

simply take a total hard line on things and so our experience in

Idaho has been a local thing.

47

Mr. BARRETT. Same thing in Utah. There seems to be a great

deal of dissimilarity in the way that they administer from region

to region.

Mr. MORAN. So the differentiation is based somewhat on the attitude of the local official in regard to this issue?

Mr. BARRETT. It may be that. It may be a condition upon the

kind of resistance he is getting from others in that area as well.

Mr. MORAN. And the explanation by local officials as to why

these strips should be closed is generally what?

Mr. BARRETT. Either disuse or environmental pressure are probably the two biggest ones that we experience.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.

Cooksey.

Mr. COOKSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to try to get

back to determining exactly where this problem exists. Are most of

these trips in the northwest states or the mountain states like

Idaho? Could you give me a ballpark figure about how many strips

are involved, you know, just a wild guess?

Mr. WELSH. That request was asked earlier, and we have given

you an IOU on that, but the number that we use in Idaho is 50.

And that is not a hard number, because that is very difficult, and

as silly as it sounds—what do you mean, you do not know how

many there are—because there are privately owned ones and so

forth, and what do you include?

Mr. COOKSEY. Does this problem exist elsewhere in the United

States or is it just a problem that is unique to these states, because

most of your state is owned by the Federal Government, Federal

lands?

Mr. BOYER. No. As I said, and I do not think you were here, Congressman Cooksey, from a national perspective, we see this mainly

centered in the western states. Let us say seven western states to

give you a ballpark, knowing that their number is probably most

robust in any state. Let us say there are on average 25 times 7.

But I cite an example in Alaska where this is beginning to occur.

Once again, it tends to occur against some environmental pressure

brought against the local management of the Federal agency. And

then once again, we get into these knee-jerk reactions rather than

an overall policy.

Mr. COOKSEY. OK. I am an environmentalist. I like to go into

these areas. I have been in the wilderness areas where you can go

in by foot or horseback, and I understand the argument for that.

Fishing, that is my preoccupation. It is really better in Louisiana

on the coast, but I like to go up in the mountains occasionally. But

when people go in that are also environmentally concerned about

it, when they get lost or have an injury, do most of them like to

walk out, ride a horse out of there, or would they rather have a

plane get them out, after they have been out of food for two or 3

days?

Mr. BOYER. I think you answered that with the question.

Mr. COOKSEY. Another question. How do you get around most of

the time, fixed wing or helicopter?

Mr. DURTSCHI. In this case we are talking about fixed wing.

48

Mr. COOKSEY. But my question is what is the availability of helicopters? The availability of helicopters is small compared to fixed

wing?

Mr. DURTSCHI. Correct. And that is said in our testimony as a

letter from a member that indicates to get a helicopter to this strip

in Oregon would have been very difficult, time-consuming—not to

land the helicopter, but to locate one and get it there, plus the expense. There is a great deal of expense for that.

Mr. COOKSEY. As a Hughes wing pilot, I still do not trust helicopters because they have too many moving parts going in all directions.

Mr. DURTSCHI. I have flown the Idaho wilderness for eight or 9

years, and I have yet to see a helicopter ever land.

Mr. COOKSEY. OK. Another personal question. There is a strip

somewhere in Idaho that is off the middle fork of the Salmon that

is actually a hunting place, and I went there 10 years ago or more.

And I know there was a big—the wreckage would be about halfway down, because on one side there was a 210. On the other far

end, there had just been a crash the previous year. Do you have

any idea what the name of that ranch is? It is a pretty well known

place.

Mr. DURTSCHI. Thomas Creek, Pistol Creek, Mahoney Sulfur

Creek, Flying B.

Mr. COOKSEY. That is it, that is all I need, Flying B.

Mr. DURTSCHI. We would be glad to take you there.

Mr. COOKSEY. I have been there.

Mr. DURTSCHI. We are leaving this afternoon.

Mr. COOKSEY. What kind of condition—why were those planes

crashed there?

Mr. DURTSCHI. Excuse me?

Mr. COOKSEY. Why were the planes crashed there? I know that

you either flew in or you had a two-and-a-half day horseback ride.

And I raise quarter horses, but it was still—flying was the better

option. We insisted in going in a Beaver, which is a very good plane

for that. Why were those planes crashed there?

Mr. DURTSCHI. I would defer to Mr. Welsh on that.

Mr. WELSH. I am not quite sure the particular incident you are

talking about, but Flying B is an airport. It is on the middle fork

of Salmon, and it is really accessible only by air, and it is a challenging strip. If the aircraft, or the pilot, or the weather conditions

are not right, it is not something that I recommend to my students

they fly into. It is simply challenging, and all of these strips have

that limitation, and things do happen.

Mr. COOKSEY. Well, you have beautiful country up there and I

really think we should do everything to preserve it, but aviation is

not, you know, the 21st century. It is 20th century and it is here

to stay. It saves lives and saves people that get lost.

Mr. WELSH. In the first place, it involves flying people out of the

B float trip, where the water got so dangerous that it was not safe,

and the guy who pulled off at the B and said, who can fly these

people out of here. So it can be a real lifesaver from another way.

Mr. COOKSEY. You can either save lives or save trees and animals. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am a physician so I would save

lives.

49

Mr. HANSEN. I thank the gentleman. I hope the committee realizes, and as you look at this particular piece of legislation, you

know, we cannot guarantee safety anywhere. Someone who is going

to run a river, he has to take that risk. If someone is going to drive

a four-wheeler out or an ATV, he takes a risk. The good pilot will

pretty well figure out if it is safe before he lands.

And I know I am not in the category like my friend with 22,000

hours against my 500, but you take a few looks at a place before

you put down, you know what you are getting into. And so I am

just somewhat amazed that sometimes we worry about that. I

mean, this is a certain responsibility comes to every person in

American when they go on public ground or anywhere else.

I would like to bring up this idea of maintenance. It seemed to

be an issue with BLM and the Forest Service. I have been given

to understand by talking to a lot of groups that they are more than

happy to go in and do the maintenance that is necessary. I believe

Mr. Durtschi brought that up at one time, as far as maybe cleaning

up the airstrip, new tie-downs, windsock, things such as that to

keep it going. And I complement you for doing that, and that is

what we should have in America is this public participation. And

I think, Mr. Boyer, your people are more than interested in doing

things such as that.

I really want to compliment this committee. I do not know of a

better committee we could have with two people representing both

Utah and Idaho, and Mr. Boyer, representing the AOPA, and Mr.

Durtschi, who is a back country pilot. That is a good cross-section

of experience.

Now, let me respectfully just say something, no disrespect to anybody here, but do not worry, the Administration will oppose this

bill. I mean, that is to be expected. I have served as the Chair of

this committee for 6 years now, and I was counting up the other

day, and I think there has only been five that they have not opposed. Most of them, we have a way of working it out, and bless

their hearts, the BLM and the Forest Service, eventually, we come

to a meeting of the minds. And so I do not mean to—do not be

shocked when the next two gentlemen coming up vigorously oppose

your bill and what you are interested in. That is to always be expected from this Administration.

Because we have an access philosophy going on, whether it is

ATV’s, whether it is four-wheelers, whether it is river runners,

whether it is pilots, or regardless of what it is, there are some people that have the opinion that access to the public grounds should

be extremely, extremely curtailed. That does not seem to be the

opinion of the American public, but I am just giving you mine. I

am sure my colleagues here could debate that, but seeing as I have

the mike and I am the last speaker here, I will say it anyway.

With that, let me thank you for being here. We welcome you to

stay. Thank you for your excellent presentation. This has been one

of the more interesting hearings that we have had. And with that

said, we will excuse you gentlemen and turn to the next one, which

is Mr. Pat Shea, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals

Management, Department of the Interior; Mr. David Alexander,

Forest Supervisor of the Payette National Forest, Department of

Agriculture.

50

Thank you, gentlemen. We surely appreciate your attendance

with us. You know the rules, you have been here before. Mr. Shea,

we will turn to you, sir. Is your mike on?

Mr. SHEA. I would be happy to have Mr. Alexander, since he is

more familiar with the forest and has been referred to several

times, to give his specific testimony and then give the overview, if

that would be all right with the Chair.

Mr. HANSEN. All of the testimony in its entirety will be included

in the record without objection, and whatever you gentlemen want

to say, we are more than interested in your testimony.

STATEMENTS OF PAT SHEA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY,

LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID ALEXANDER, FOREST

SUPERVISOR OF THE PAYETTE NATIONAL FOREST, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

STATEMENT OF DAVID ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to

come here today and speak to you about H.R. 3661. I am David Alexander, the Forest Supervisor of Payette National Forest, and I

am one of the four supervisors that are responsible for the management of the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness. I have

submitted, and I believe you have my full written testimony, so I

am going to try and just summarize that briefly.

Mr. HANSEN. That will be fine.

Mr. ALEXANDER. The Forest Service is involved in many aspects

of aviation, everything from our district people being out on airstrips working with volunteers from the aviation community to do

maintenance through working with the Department of Defense to

develop low level jet routes across the national forest for training.

We work an awful lot with the outfitting and guiding association

in Oregon and in other states, trying to make sure we are facilitating their businesses.

I, personally, use back country airstrips a great deal myself, both

for business and for recreation. I am not a pilot, but it is very reasonable to rent a plane, or to rent a pilot, go in and recreate, and

I have done that a number of times. A lot of the back country airstrips in our national forest were developed, really, to service emergency landing points for early aviators, but they have evolved now

to a point that primary users today are recreational pilots, outfitters and their planes, state and local governments; particularly, in

regard to search and rescue organizations and, of course, land managers. We use those strips ourselves for administrative use.

As has been made known earlier, we really do not know how

many back country airstrips there are. It is very difficult to categorize it across the country. We know maybe a little bit more

about it in forests like the Payette or in Idaho because of the management issues that we have had, but I have no idea how many

there are nationwide on the national forest. But a lot of those airstrips are in the wilderness and, of course, the Forest Service has

followed the Wilderness Act of 1964 in many cases, and a lot of airstrips in the wilderness, or designated wilderness, have been

closed. There have been, however, some very notable exceptions,

51

and one of those is the establishment of the Frank Church River

of No Return Wilderness, where aviation use is specified as a valid

use and where we manage those airstrips very carefully under the

law, trying to follow congressional direction and intent.

But the Administration does strongly oppose this bill, and to

summarize, the main issues of opposition is, first of all, it takes the

rules that are applied in the Frank Church River of No Return and

somewhat expands those, and then applies them nationwide. My

concern and the concern, I think, of the Forest Service is that a national policy is counter to our belief that these decisions can and

should be made by professional land managers based on applicable

laws and regulations, current resources, social conditions, and with

full public involvement and the involvement of other agencies that

are involved.

We are concerned that this bill could result in mandating priorities for maintenance on airstrips in a very limited budget situation. We have very difficult problems with the budgets that we use

to handle our facilities, and we are a little bit concerned that the

bill could have us into a situation where we are mandated as to

what we have to do. We are not arguing about the fact that we

need to do maintenance, but to be mandated how much of that

budget has got to go that way.

The bill has some potential to effect land exchanges, and that is

a concern to us. But I think, in summary, we recognize the importance of aviation in the back country. I do not think that is the

issue here; at least, I hope not. I think we fully understand the importance of providing opportunities for those people who, physically, could not otherwise visit the back country. I think that we

understand the importance, economically, if the air traffic or the

air taxi business, and of the need for outfitters and guides, river

rafters, hunters, hunting outfitters, to get their clients into the

back country using these airstrips. I think that we realize that

these airstrips are extremely important from emergency use by pilots and also for the health and safety of other wilderness and back

country users.

However, for some of the reasons that I mentioned above, the Administration strongly opposes the enactment of H.R. 3661. We believe our current policies provide adequate aircraft access with the

appropriate local flexibility and public input. I would be pleased to

answer any questions.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Alexander follows:]

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Alexander. Mr. Shea.

STATEMENT OF PAT SHEA

Mr. SHEA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, over the last

30 years that you and I have been involved in politics, we have always found ways of working out solutions. Indeed, it was a couple

of years ago that I was here on another hearing you chaired on the

fair appraisal question for land exchanges. And I am pleased to announce to you, as you know, that we have established a very good

working private/public partnership. I think that kind of dialog has

been in the past quite constructive.

I do have to say with 3661, however, we would be unalterably

opposed to it because in an ironic way, it takes the local decisionmaking process that I would suggest, even with the testimony here

today, has been working. It is not broken, it does not need to be

fixed.

To answer Congressman Gibbons question about the Dolores situation, we have made a call to the MOAB office. Their understanding is that that airstrip was not on BLM land, it was on private land. We are checking that further and we will submit something for the record that will give an answer. But there is a clear

public process mentioned by the Utah pilot of the EIS requirement

in Vernal, or out of the Vernal District office, reflects the ability

of the public to participate in these decisionmaking questions.

Now, I do think the questions related to conflicting uses, and

one, Mr. Chairman, that I am sure you are very sympathetic to is

the air borders that are essential for national defense in the desert

of Utah. You begin encouraging the public to think that there are

airstrips that they can use for recreational purposes, and you begin

to have conflicts between the needed military use, or in Idaho,

around Mountain Home, that is something that I think would be

an unintended consequence of this legislation.

Utah has had several instances where there have been drug

planes that have landed on these strips, and even though they are

remote, drug dealers are very creative in the ways they find transporting things. So I think having an unlimited sense of these airstrips can be put anyplace that the public provides they need to be

would be in certain conflict.

Where the conflict has arisen, in my judgment, has been where

increased recreational use on the ground has begun to move into

areas that, traditionally, could only be accessed either by horseback, by backpacking, or by air. And I will tell a personal experience on the Selway, the River of No Return Wilderness Area,

where we floated for 5 days, Moose Creek, it is a major recreational

airstrip. And I have to tell you, that it is very disconcerting to be

floating down the river and all of a sudden have five or ten aircraft

land in the middle of the area in an unanticipated way. It is not

to say that it should not be there, but I think the BLM process and

the Forest Service process which has been described allows for

those conflicting uses to be resolved on the ground in the local

area.

And I would suggest to you in very strong terms that 3661 is

going to yank that decisionmaking out of the local area and impose

a national standard. And given the number of times that I, as an

60

Administration witness, or other witnesses for the Administration

have been admonished by the Congress to keep decisionmaking at

the local area, I think 3661 creates a certain conflict with that admonition.

So just to leave the subject, we are concerned about how budgetary sources would be generated. California has estimated that we

would have to spend $2,000 to $5,000 a year to maintain these

strips. I think the uninformed flyer from the east coast, coming

west, might assume that there was some type of Federal standard

and decide to try to place their plane in a place that she was not

trained to place it. And the accident that would result, the ranch

in Idaho is a good example of how hazardous this type of flying is.

And by allowing the kind of unlimited right to establish airstrips

that I believe 3661 does, you are inviting future problems.

So my final statement is I hope that we can keep a constructive

dialog going on, that we maintain the kind of local or regional decisionmaking that FLIPNA requires be allowed to do or the National

Forest Act requires the Forest Service to do, and not have some

sort of Federal legislation that is one size fits all.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Shea follows:]

61

62

63

64

65

66

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Shea. Questions for the Administration, the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am somewhat perplexed by Mr. Shea’s comments with regard to not wanting to establish a national policy on this area when, in fact, every

time the Administration comes in here, they want a uniform standard national policy affecting the national forest. I would prefer that

all decisions with regard to the treatment of our national forest or

public lands be local. I appreciate your understanding and your

concern about that. My confusion, of course, is that you believe this

bill is going to create new airports. It does not; it merely establishes a process for the closure determination.

And when it comes to terms of military conflicts, I, having spent

twenty-some years in the military using low altitude corridors,

know that those are fully published, they are identified, they are

restricted in certain areas, both in terms of altitude and airspace.

And in that publication, private pilots are very well aware of where

they are, know what they are in use for. I do not find even at

Mountain Home there to be a conflict as you may state.

Now, my question to you, Mr. Shea, with regard to the Dolores

Point Landing Strip, you said there was a consideration that it

may have been private property. Did BLM spend any money for

any resources or any time using machinery to drag logs onto the

runway or any other item that would have been used to close the

runway?

Mr. SHEA. Congressman, I will have to find that answer out for

you and submit it to the committee.

Mr. GIBBONS. Would not they have had to come to you to use an

expenditure to do that?

Mr. SHEA. They certainly would have had as part of their innovated land management plan to publish the action, and then had

public comment on it as to how that particular land use was fitting

into their new land management plan under FLIPNA.

Mr. GIBBONS. The Mexican Mountain Landing Strip, there is another one that has been used often times by the private sector, noncommercial sector. It is in a wilderness study area which was established after the runway was established there and used. You

and your agencies are attempting to close it even though it has a

preexisting and are required by law to leave it open. The law says

to leave it open. Why are you pursuing action to close that strip?

Mr. SHEA. Again, Congressman, I will have to have the particular facts as relates to that airport. I would observe two things:

Before an area can be a wilderness area, Congress has to act on

it, and as they did with the Frank Church——

Mr. GIBBONS. Well, this is a wilderness study area, so you and

I both know that that has no congressional requirement in it, although you treat it, defacto, as a wilderness area.

Mr. SHEA. And there is disagreement as to how we should handle

that. The Administration, in my judgment, has quite correctly attempted to manage these as if they were wilderness areas so no

damage would be done.

Mr. GIBBONS. But even though the law says that this runway

should remain open, you want to close it.

67

Mr. SHEA. Well, again, I will have to find out the facts and get

a letter to you on that.

Mr. GIBBONS. All right. Just for each of you, I want you to answer this question, if you will. Would you describe for me the environmental groups that have come to your agency asking for these

airstrips to be closed and tell me what their rationale is when they

approach you—you or your agency?

Mr. SHEA. To my knowledge, we have not received any requests

from any environmental groups for a national act. I do think in the

instances of——

Mr. GIBBONS. Would you check with your agency to find out——

Mr. SHEA. I will.

Mr. GIBBONS.—so that it is an agency approach as well?

Mr. SHEA. Fine. I will do that.

Mr. GIBBONS. How about the Forest Service?

Mr. ALEXANDER. I am not personally aware of requests to close

airstrips, but I would need to get back to you on that. I can tell

you that from the area that I manage, I have had no request of

that type.

Mr. GIBBONS. OK. And if you would just make an inquiry into

your agency and then report back to us the groups and the rationale for their request to you to close these airstrips?

Mr. ALEXANDER. All right, sir.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shea, Mr. Alexander, a state or a group of general aviation pilots want to keep

an airstrip open at the present time. What is the process that they

go through?

Mr. ALEXANDER. The process to keep an area open?

Mr. LIPINSKI. Well, yes. I guess what I am saying is, if the Forest

Service wants to close down one of these strips, not allow planes

to land there, let it grow over, let it go back to the wilderness, what

is the present course of action for a state or general aviation pilots?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Well, if the Forest Service were to do this, it is

going to require a decision under the National Environmental Policy Act, which means that we are going to have to publicly state

our intention, we are going to have to gather input from the public

and from other interested agencies. So it is going to be well known

what our intention is. We would have to consider a number of alternatives, including a no action alternative, which is to keep it

open. By law, we need to do that.

That is not, however, an issue that I deal with very much because for the most part, the airstrips that I deal with in Idaho are

mandated by law to stay open. And so the discussions that we have

are generally of a different nature there, concerning to what degree

do we need to maintain and things of that nature.

Mr. LIPINSKI. So there is a process available now that is a very

public process?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Do you have any idea what the cost would be if we

were to enact this legislation on your various bureaus, departments?

68

Mr. ALEXANDER. I do not have, because it is in my mind a bit

difficult to interpret. In other words, at this point in time, we do

not have a maintenance requirement or a standard established on

these airstrips that we are keeping open. We do try to work with

various interest groups. We have great, great cooperation from voluntary workmen, like pilot associations and things of that nature.

They do a tremendous amount of work.

However, our maintenance needs are increasing, primarily, because these airstrips were designated about 20 years ago, and vegetation has been growing, and it is not just brush, it is timber. And

we need to get in and start to do some things for approach and

take-off needs to make those areas safe. Those may be significant

in some cases. We are at the current time at the stage of having

a drafted Environmental Impact Statement out as to how we want

to manage the airstrips in Frank Church.

And one of the things that we are proposing is the possibility of

a group of individuals from the FAA, from the State of Idaho, from

private pilot associations, along with the Forest Service, helping us

to understand from each of those perspectives what needs to be

done on each of those airstrips. We would like to prioritize those

and apply our limited funds. We would like to have the latitude to

do that on a local basis, taking all the factors into account, rather

than having that specified as to what must be done every year.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Do you have any idea how many strips this legislation would cover?

Mr. ALEXANDER. I do not, sir. I think Mr. Welsh gave you about

as good an idea of Idaho and some of the areas as I could. I know

that I manage 12 or 13 of them, and I would assume that, nationally, it may be in the hundreds. I would assume that, but I cannot

substantiate that. I would be very interested, myself, in learning

when the pilot’s association comes forward with that number, I am

going to be very interested.

Mr. LIPINSKI. I am sure Phil will come up with the number, too.

Is Mr. Bennett here from the FAA to answer some questions?

Mr. SHEA. We have a technical person here, yes.

Mr. HANSEN. Will you state your name for the record, please.

Mr. BENNETT. My name is David Bennett, Director of Airport

Safety and Standards for the FAA.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Bennett, do you have any idea how many

strips we are talking about here?

Mr. BENNETT. No, I do not. These are completely outside of our

system of airports.

Mr. LIPINSKI. OK. Can you tell me what impact this legislation

would have on the FAA?

Mr. BENNETT. The bill is a little vague. It involves us in the planning process for developing a national policy for approvals of either

opening or closing strips. It is really not consistent with the program that we administer now. We are directed by law to provide

a national plan of airports, a national system of airports that meet

certain criteria that is published every year, entitled the ‘‘National

Plan on Integrated Airport Systems’’. There are about 3,300 airports nation wide that are included .

Mr. LIPINSKI. Now, those are airports that the FAA is responsible

for?

69

Mr. BENNETT. Yes. We found that they have a significant importance to the system to make sure that we serve communities nationwide. Generally, if they are general aviation airports, they have

at least ten based aircraft and they serve some community. So that

is about 3,300 airports. There are a total of 18,000 airports in the

U.S. Many of these are outside of that national system, being small

private-owned airports. And from our point of view, these are considered privately owned airports.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Now, would you run that by me just once again.

I did not quite get all those numbers, or understand all those numbers. Would you start with what the FAA is responsible for and go

through—I think you mentioned 18,000, was it?

Mr. BENNETT. Yes. Let me work from the 18,000 number back.

Mr. LIPINSKI. I would appreciate that.

Mr. BENNETT. We think there is 18,000 airports.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Or airstrips?

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, there are airstrips and airports of every kind

in the U.S.

Mr. LIPINSKI. OK.

Mr. BENNETT. Of those, a little over 5,000 are public use facilities. Some of them may be publicly owned, some of them may be

privately owned, but they are open to public use. And they may include some of these strips which are now shown on the charts as

open for public use. Within that number, about 3,300 are in the

FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, and those are

the only ones that we participate in the planning of or provide any

Federal support to.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Do you know if the FAA has a position on this

piece of legislation?

Mr. BENNETT. We do not. We have not reviewed it or taken a position.

Mr. LIPINSKI. You have not reviewed it at all?

Mr. BENNETT. Well, very briefly. We do not have an agency position on it.

Mr. LIPINSKI. OK. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from New

Hampshire, Mr. Bass.

Mr. BASS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do apologize

for being late, a minute or two late for this hearing, and I regret

having missed some of the earlier testimony.

It is my understanding that all this bill says is that if the Interior Agriculture Department considers the closure of an airstrip on

Federal land, that they have to consult the FAA. Now, the FAA

controls airspace, and they are charged with our nation’s air system, and this bill in no way restricts your ability to close it. It just

says you have to consult them. You do not even want to consult

with anybody. Is that right?

Mr. SHEA. Well, I think the bill does not clearly articulate that

consultative nature that you are now articulating. If you want to

narrow it to that perspective, then, certainly, we would take a second look at it. But as it presently stands, there is no definition of

landing strip, there is no definition of maintenance.

Mr. BASS. But does not the BLM have a definition of landing

strip? You guys know what a landing strip is. Do you not?

70

Mr. SHEA. No. We do not. Under FLIPNA, we do defer to local

and regional plans for the integrated land management of that

area as to whether or not they will allow that type of use in that

area.

Mr. BASS. Your regulations do not anywhere say the word, aircraft landing strip? Are you saying that?

Mr. SHEA. No. There are, certainly.

Mr. BASS. And it is not defined anywhere, and BLM does not

have any idea what a landing strip is or whether it is defined?

Mr. SHEA. I do not think I said that. I said there are regulations,

they are interpreted by local district managers, generally after public consultation, as to appropriate local use for those areas.

Mr. BASS. Are there any circumstances in which you would support a bill that would allow the FAA to play any role in the determination as to whether an airstrip even properly defined would remain open or closed?

Mr. SHEA. We presently consult with the FAA. In fact, in Idaho

at Mountain Home, as we were going through 99606, which Congressman Gibbons is very familiar with, we had extensive consultations on an ongoing basis about keeping up an FAA airport that

was in the middle of a military reservation.

Mr. BASS. But you do not think there should be any——

Mr. SHEA. If I could finish? The record is very clear that the consultation with FAA goes on.

Mr. BASS. On an Ad Hoc basis whenever the Interior Department

or Agriculture Department wants to, but not——

Mr. SHEA. Or when the public says this is somebody we should

consult.

Mr. BASS. So your point is then that we do not need the legislation because the problem is taken care of anyway on an Ad Hoc

basis?

Mr. SHEA. I said at the beginning of my statement, I think before

you came in, that I was interested in finding a way to maintain the

local decisionmaking process. And that often involves consultation

with state aeronautic agencies, with Federal aviation agency, or

the military reservations in nearby areas.

Mr. BASS. The gentleman from the FAA, I take it the FAA is opposed to this bill?

Mr. BENNETT. We have taken no position on it.

Mr. BASS. Are you willing to?

Mr. BENNETT. I do not think we have any plan to take a position

on this legislation.

Mr. BASS. It would be appreciative if you might be willing to

bring this to the attention of Jane Garvey, Administrator Garvey,

and ask her if she would be willing to write me a letter and tell

me what she thinks about it.

Mr. BENNETT. I will do that.

Mr. BASS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire. The

gentleman from Nevada, do you have further questions?

Mr. GIBBONS. Well, only one. I would address Mr. Alexander with

this. When the Forest Service has gone through this public process

about determining closure of an airport, and there is a finding of

no significant impact, or whatever, how many times has the Forest

71

Service gone forward and closed an airport when there was a finding of no significant impact?

Mr. ALEXANDER. I am not aware of that on an national scale. I

can localize it a bit, though. When we went through the process on

Frank Church and developed a new plan, and it was under NEPA,

there was language in the first draft that said that we think we

ought to allow four of these airstrips to gradually close themselves

because they are of marginal safety. That was an area of quite a

bit of controversy in the aviation community. Their input has been

noted and we have withdrawn that proposal.

We have taken a step back and said that is not going to be the

appropriate thing to do. The question now is, at what level are we

going to keep them open and how much maintenance are we going

to be doing? And that is an ongoing dialog. But we have taken the

idea of either closing or allowing those strips to close through neglect, off the table, it is not appropriate.

Mr. GIBBONS. So how many times would you say the Forest Service has taken a no action?

Mr. ALEXANDER. I could not tell you that on a national scale, sir.

Mr. GIBBONS. The bill itself does not require you to create or actually maintain an airport without consideration for the existing

surroundings. At what level of expense would you think that would

take?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Well, the difficulties that we have in the language of the bill is assessing that. Now, understand that in my

area, I am already required to involve the State of Idaho by law

in any decisions we make regarding the wilderness. So the addition

of the FAA in this Act increases that. But at this point, we are

working on a very low-key level in determining that. We intend to

raise the level of determination of what needs to be done at these

airports. They are in Idaho—airstrips, I should say—but I cannot

project under the bill, under the language of the bill, what the cost

might be.

It appears that there is an opportunity there for the priority and

the designation of maintenance work to be done in the consultation

process, although, the cost would be ours. And ultimately, I think

the liability of the airstrip is ours.

Mr. GIBBONS. At what level does safety play a role in your decision process?

Mr. ALEXANDER. A tremendous amount.

Mr. GIBBONS. Would you say it is the No. 1 considering factor?

Mr. ALEXANDER. I believe it is.

Mr. GIBBONS. All right. Now, if safety required that the runway

be paved in your forest versus a dirt or gravel strip, would you dictate then that the runway be paved?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Experience has not shown that to be a consideration. We have been using these strips for probably 60 years,

maybe more.

Mr. GIBBONS. And 60 years has shown that many of these strips

can be used safely. There is an incident or two on almost every airport, whether it is Chicago O’Hare or the Flying B, or whatever it

is.

Mr. ALEXANDER. That is correct. I do not believe we are talking

about being concerned with the fact that the maintenance levels

72

would be dictated to be above and beyond what is reasonable. We

have fatalities almost every year on my forest in aviation. I know

Mr. Welsh could probably give you facts and figures about that

more than I can. I have lost some close friends who were pilots

back there, but it has not been from the safety of the airstrip. Generally, flying in mountainous conditions is just a hazardous business.

Mr. GIBBONS. Right. And in most of those occasions, the determination of air is rested with the pilot rather than the Forest Service.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes.

Mr. GIBBONS. If not every one of those occurrences. Is that——

Mr. ALEXANDER. Exactly. We fully understand that we do not

have the responsibility of the determination of airspace. That is the

FAA’s business. What we are concerned with is providing for a safe

landing strip that in and of itself does not provide a hazard to the

aviation user.

Mr. GIBBONS. Some of those airports have been there for 60

years, so there is a presumption that they have been used safely

in the past and could be used safely in the future. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire, and

I thank Mr. Shea and Mr. Alexander for being with us today and

sharing your thoughts with us. And with that, we will stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]