U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

58–698 u WASHINGTON : 1999

ISSUES REGARDING THE NEW NPS METHODOLOGY USED TO EVALUATE THE ACHIEVEMENT OF NATURAL QUIET RESTORATION

STANDARDS IN GRAND CANYON NATIONAL

PARK

OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC

LANDS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 25, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 106–33

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, 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

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-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. HUNT, 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)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held May 25, 1999 ..................................................................................... 1

Statements of Members:

Berkley, Hon. Shelley, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Nevada ........................................................................................................... 5

Additional material submitted by ............................................................ 7

Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nevada ................................................................................................................ 12

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12

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

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

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2

Romero-Barcelo ́, Hon. Carlos A., a Delegate to Congress from the Territory of Puerto Rico ........................................................................................ 7

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4

Vento, Hon. Bruce F., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Minnesota ...................................................................................................... 4

Statements of witnesses:

Alberti, John, Owner, JR Engineering ........................................................... 25

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 101

Bassett, Steve, President, United States Air Tour Association .................... 66

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 69

Lowey, Jackie, Deputy Director, National Park Service; accompanied by

Wes Henry, Research Administrator, National Park Service, and Robert

Arnberger, Superintendent, Grand Canyon National Park ...................... 18

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 20

Resavage, Roy, President, Helicopter Association International .................. 115

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 117

Snow, Jacob, Assistant Director, Clarke County Department of Aviation,

McCarran International Airport .................................................................. 86

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 90

Stephen, Alan R., President, Twin Otter International, Inc. ........................ 39

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 41

Traynham, David, Assistant Administrator for Policy, Planning and

International Aviation, Federal Aviation Administration; Thomas

Connnor, Office of Energy and Environment, Federal Aviation Administration ............................................................................................................ 28

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 24

Additional material supplied:

Hingson, Dickson J., Ph.D., Rockville, Utah .................................................. 137

Santini, Jim, United States Air Tour Association, Rebuttal of NPS and

FAA testimony at hearing ............................................................................ 125

Sierra Club Washington, DC, statement of .................................................... 141

(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ISSUES REGARDING

THE NEW NPS METHODOLOGY USED TO

EVALUATE THE ACHIEVEMENT OF NATURAL QUIET RESTORATION STANDARDS IN

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK

TUESDAY, MAY 25, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

AND PUBLIC LANDS, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in Room

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James Hansen

[chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Mr. HANSEN. The Committee will come to order.

Good morning, and welcome to the oversight hearing which will

address an ongoing issue in the Grand Canyon National Park. This

issue deals with the relationship between air tour overflights and

the assumed non-attainment of substantial restoration of natural

quiet of the Grand Canyon. I will be brief because I want to get

right to the hearing, but I do have a few comments.

It was not even a year ago that this Subcommittee heard testimony that was extremely convincing to me and others that the

Park Service had made some major errors in their use of the integrated noise model of the 1994 report to Congress which looked at

the effects of overflights on the National Park System. In fact, the

testimony was convincing enough for me to conclude that natural

quiet has been restored in the Grand Canyon. However, instead of

thoroughly scrutinizing and integrating the new scientific analysis

and information provided by these very reputable reviewers and to

new regulations, the Park Service, has instead, developed a new

standard, one that is unattainable and will have devastating effects

on the core industry.

The January 26 public notice in The Federal Register states that

the Park Service, to use their language, ‘‘will use this refined methodology in future restoration of natural quiet in the Grand Canyon

National Park unless science or public planning process provides

better approaches.’’ The clear meaning here is that this new standard is to be immediately used as the new measuring stick to see if the natural quiet

2

has been restored without the benefits of peer review or at the very

least. This, to me, says two important things:

One is that the Park Service presents this issue as a moving

target. When, for example, they are shown by good scientific

study that substantial restoration of natural quiet has occurred

even by their own standards, they switched to a harder-toachieve and less obtainable different threshold. This is a common and very frustrating ploy of the environmental community: As soon as you get close to solving the problem, move the

target.

Secondly, it seems to me that the Park Service is acting in

less than good faith when they state, for example, that they

may change to a ‘‘better approach.’’ By this, I assume them to

mean that they might change this new standard if science

shows them a better way. However, last September, we had

some distinguished acoustical scientists in here and they provided solid evidence that the Park Service had made some serious errors. Yet, what happened to this? I don’t think that the

Park Service looked at any of it, and now with this public notice we are supposed to believe that more good science may

change things. Based on the past evidence, I am a little dubious.

Hopefully, this oversight will bring more light, so that we can finally come to some conclusion on this issue, and I believe the sooner the better, as natural quiet has surfaced in national parks beyond the boundaries of the Grand Canyon. In Michigan and in Biscayne Bay, a national park in Florida, to name two, they are both

looking at eliminating a variety of traditional park uses because of

concerns of natural quiet. We need to take a hard and careful look

at what we are going to do with this.

I want to welcome our witnesses here, and because time is short,

I am going to ask them all to stay within their five minutes.

Now, I have another problem, and that is that I am one of the

nine members of the Cox Commission. The Cox Commission is

looking to see whether or not there was quid pro quo with the Chinese development regarding things such as delivery systems, warheads, and all that intrigue. For some reason, I am told by someone way above my pay grade that I darn well better be over there

at 10:30 or I am in big trouble. So, I have asked my good friend

from Tennessee, the chairman of the FAA Subcommittee and also

a member of this Committee, to chair the meeting when I have to

leave, and which I would appreciate.

I thank you all for being here, and we are grateful that our colleague from Nevada, Shelly Berkley, will be our lead-off witness.

So, we will start with the Congresswoman from Nevada and move

on as rapidly as we can.

With that, I will turn to the gentleman from Puerto Rico for any

opening statement he may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF UTAH

Good morning everyone and welcome to this oversight hearing which will address

an ongoing issue in the Grand Canyon National Park. This issue deals with the reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:57 Feb 02, 2001 Jkt 067082 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\58698 pfrm02 PsN: 58698
3

lationship between air tour overflights and the assumed non-attainment of substantial restoration of natural quiet of the Grand Canyon.

I will be very brief because I want to get right to the hearing, but I do have a

few comments to make. It was not even a year ago that this Subcommittee heard

testimony that was extremely convincing to me and others that the Park Service

had made some major errors in their use of the Integrated Noise Model for the 1994

Report to Congress which looked at the effects of overflights on the National Park

System. In fact, the testimony was convincing enough for me to conclude that natural quiet has been restored in the Grand Canyon.

However, instead of thoroughly scrutinizing and integrating the new scientific

analysis and information provided by these very reputable reviewers into new regulations, the Park Service has, instead, developed a new standard—one that is unattainable and will have devastating effects on the air tour industry. The January

26th Public Notice in the Federal Register states that the Park Service, to use their

language, ‘‘will use this refined methodology in future restoration of natural quiet

at GCNP, unless science or public planning processes provides better approaches.’’ The clear meaning here is that this new standard is to be immediately used as the

new measuring stick to see if there natural quiet has been restored without the benefit of a peer review, at the very least.

This to me says two important things. One is that the Park Service presents this

issue as a moving target. When, for example, they are shown by good scientific

study that substantial restoration of natural quiet has occurred, even by using their

own standards, they switch to a harder-to-achieve and less attainable different

threshold. This is a common and frustrating environmental ploy—as soon as you get

close to solving the problem, move the target.

Secondly, it seems to me that the Park Service is acting in less than good faith

when they state, for example, that they may change to a ‘‘better approach.’’ By this

I assume them to mean that they might change this new standard, if science shows

them a better way. However, last September we had some distinguished acoustical

scientists in here and they provided solid evidence that the Park Service had made

some serious errors. Yet what happened to this? I don’t think that the Park Service

looked at any of it. And now from this public notice we are supposed to believe that

more good science may change things. Based on the past evidence, I wouldn’t be too sure. Hopefully, this oversight will bring more things to light so that we can finally

come to some conclusion on this issue. And I believe the sooner the better as natural

quiet has surfaced in national parks beyond the boundaries of the Grand Canyon.

Isle Royale in Michigan and Biscayne National Park in Florida, to name two, are

both looking at eliminating a variety of traditional park uses because of concerns

with natural quiet. We need to take a hard and careful look at where we are going

with this.

With that, I want to welcome our witnesses here today. Because time is short,

I would like to ask that each of them earnestly try to keep the oral statement to

5 minutes or less.

STATEMENT OF HON. CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , A DELEGATE TO CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF PUERTO

RICO

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very

brief also. I have to make a few comments when it deals with

something as important as the Grand Canyon National Park,

which is one of the most magnificent units of the National Park

system. And it is not surprising, then, that there is a lot of interest

in the park’s management, especially in the issue of aircraft noise.

Congress, in 1987, directed the NPS to develop a plan to restore

the natural quiet of the park. In 1994, the NPS reported to Congress that the natural quiet of the park had not been substantially

restored.

Today’s hearing focuses on the methodology used by the National

Park Service to evaluate the achievement of natural quiet restoration standards in the Grand Canyon National Park.

The NPS, in cooperation with the FAA, has proposed a number

of refinements to the methodology for determining the substantial

4

restoration of natural quiet. It should be noted that the underlying

National Park Service definition of substantial restoration of natural quiet has been upheld by the courts. Aircraft overflights have

been a source of continuing problems for Grand Canyon National

Park, especially in light of the explosion of overflights that have occurred since the 1987 Act. We are pleased by the recent joint efforts of the National Park Service and the Federal Aviation Administration to address these problems, and we look forward to hearing

from the witnesses, and in particular, from our colleague, Congresswoman Shelly Berkley from Nevada.

I would also like to also excuse myself that I will have to be leaving around 20 minutes of, because the Secretary of the Navy is in

my office, and we have a real substantial problem with noise,

which is even much more severe than the one in the Grand Canyon—noise and explosions on the Island of Vieques.

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the attendance of our witnesses

and look forward to their testimony. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Romero-Barcelo ́ follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO ́, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE TERRITORY OF GUAM

Mr. Chairman, Grand Canyon National Park is one of the magnificent units of

the National Park System. It is not surprising then that there is a lot of interest

in the park’s management, especially on the issue of aircraft noise. Congress in 1987

directed the NPS to develop a plan to restore the natural quiet to the park. In 1994,

the NPS reported to Congress that the natural quiet of the park had not been substantially restored.

Today’s hearing focuses on the methodology used by the National Park Service to

evaluate the achievement of natural quiet restoration standards in Grand Canyon

National Park. The NPS, in cooperation with the FAA, has proposed a number of

refinements to the methodology for determining the substantial restoration of natural quiet. It should be noted that the underlying National Park Service definition

of substantial restoration of natural quiet has been upheld by the Courts.

Aircraft overflights have been a source of continuing problems for Grand Canyon

National Park, especially in light of the explosion of overflights that has occurred

since the 1987 Act. We are pleased by the recent joint efforts of the National Park

Service and the Federal Aviation Administration to address these problems.

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the attendance of our witnesses today and look forward to their testimony.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentleman from Minnesota?

STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE F. VENTO, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This problem, in fact, the

study that occurred out of the 100th Congress—I don’t remember

if it was 1987 or 1988 that we enacted legislation to limit overflights over the Grand Canyon, with the support of Senator McCain

and many others. It took a long time for the Park Service to go

through this process. Obviously, I had hoped that they would be

open to future changes, depending upon what the acoustical

science, and so forth, would provide. I would say that, obviously,

we had limits over a series of parks at that time, as you recall, Mr.

Chairman, including Haleakala and Glacier and a number of others.

I would just point out that the impact of aircraft overflight, especially related to tourism, over many of our parks and other types

of new uses that are coming into vogue, whether it would be perVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:57 Feb 02, 2001 Jkt 067082 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\58698 pfrm02 PsN: 58698
5

sonal watercraft and/or snowmobiles, are, in fact, having an impact

on, first of all, of course, the preservation of the areas and the enjoyment as it is experienced by others. Obviously, it has been an

important part. The aircraft over at the tour industry has been interested in following regulation and cooperating. Many of the details of some of these rules are often left to those that can work

on them full time because they require a lot of attention and study.

I know that you have had a series of hearings on this in the past

year, so I hope to get up to speed a little bit today on what the

status is. But I think the goal is pretty clear in terms of trying to

preserve the visitor experience at the Grand Canyon. Perhaps at

other parks, as we look at other types of impacts, as I have pointed

out, from other types of technology that are occurring, whether it

is snowmobiles or personal watercraft or yet others that I can’t anticipate, I think we should try to be supportive of good science and

of good policies that are attempting to be put in place and recognize that trying to harmonize these may result in some businesses

changing the mode in which they have operated without regulation

in the past. Although, I would point out again, that this industry

has been somewhat cooperative in terms of the goal, but I look forward to the testimony and to learning more about some of the specifics. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. I thank the gentleman. You may recall back in the

1980’s, when we did this before, we thought we had solved the

problem. But then you get into the safety issue and then you get

into the noise issue. At that time, Moe Udall was the chairman of

the Committee. You may recall Tony Coehlo was part of that. Many

of us went out there and many of us confessed that we had flown

airplanes right down the middle of there and repented of our many

past sins for doing that.

[Laughter.]

We thought we pretty well had this thing resolved at one time,

and now you get into this acoustical issue; it is kind of like global

warming; there are 50 experts on both sides of this one.

Having been one of the old dogs on the Armed Services Committee and in procurement, I constantly am asking about new technology, as you alluded to. I am amazed at some of the technology

we are now seeing come about regarding aircraft and possibly a

dramatic change from what we have expected in the past.

With that said, I would like to turn to our colleague from Nevada.

STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY BERKLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Ms. BERKLEY. Good morning. Mr. Chairman and members of the

Subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to speak today in support

of the air touring industry. I appreciate your efforts to strike a fair

balance between protecting our fragile Grand Canyon environment,

while addressing the needs and interests of more than a half million travelers who view the splendor of the Grand Canyon each

year by air. Today, I ask you to consider a rulemaking that would

strike a fair balance that enables visitors to experience the majesty

of the Grand Canyon either from ground level or from the air.

6

As a business-minded Member with a strong environmental

record, I realize just how difficult finding compromises may be. I,

too, want to preserve this natural wonder for our children’s grandchildren. That is undisputed. However, I feel that I must point out

just how critical the air tour industry is to my home State. This

industry has been a vital part of our economy and our way of life

for more than 60 years. Since 1937, it has wooed tourists and locals

who view Las Vegas as the gateway to the Grand Canyon. If the

Park Service is permitted to redefine the parameters of natural

quiet to include an aircraft noise threshold of flight decibels below

natural ambient sound, it lays the foundation for the elimination

of this industry. Valuable jobs would be lost and families in my district will be hurt.

According to a study by the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, my

alma mater, air touring contributes more than $374 million each

year to the Nevada tourism economy. This is an enormous amount

of money on which my constituents’ livelihoods depend.

Secondly, the industry allows thousands of individuals, who

would not normally be able to visit our national park on foot, the

opportunity to view the Grand Canyon. Without air tours, many

older Americans, many veterans, and the disabled would be denied

this magnificent opportunity. Many others who are on a tight family vacation schedule or our international visitors whose schedules

simply do not allow for hiking the back country will also miss out

on this fabulous opportunity.

I fear that the Federal Aviation Administration and the National

Park Service’s proposed natural quiet methodology would demolish

this tradition. Serious concerns have been raised that the National

Park Service’s overstating audibility of air tour aircraft by three

things:

One, underestimating natural noise levels in the Canyon by

using the quietest times of the day as representative noise levels during all times of the day.

Number two, overstating aircraft noise levels by not adequately accounting for barriers such as Grand Canyon walls

that often intervene.

And number three, overstating aircraft noise levels by assuming that they fly at higher speeds and power settings than

they actually do.

A decade ago, special Federal Air Regulation 52 was implemented in the Grand Canyon. I feel that this regulation meets the

congressional mandate of the Overflights Act, which called for a

substantial restoration of natural quiet in the Canyon. It reduced

aircraft noise significantly; even the agency’s own analysis revealed

that noise complaints decreased by 92 percent.

I am not the only one concerned about the viability of this industry. The State of Nevada is so concerned that the legislature passed

an emergency resolution, S.J.R. 21, just two weeks ago, supporting

the southern Nevada air tour industry. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of S.J.R. 21 be entered into the

record.

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection.

[The information follows:]

7

8

9

10

11

12

Ms.T4 Berkley. As I stated earlier, I am a strong supporter of

our environment, but I ask you today, is there a more environmentally-sensitive way to see the Grand Canyon than by air? Air

tour passengers leave no footprints, dispose of no garbage, flick no

burning cigarettes into the brush. They simply fly over the Canyon,

take pictures, and return with precious memories.

Mr. Chairman, we all share a fundamental commitment to protect our national parks and our natural resources. But, as Members

of Congress, we also must strike a balance between the needs and

requirements of all of our citizens. We must seek to produce regulations based on scientific information and public input that will not

sacrifice the environment, the interests of the air tour industry, or

the economic benefits to our local economy.

I would like to thank you for your kind attention, and I ask that

an extension of my remarks be submitted for the record.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Berkley follows:]

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection, and we thank the gentlelady

from Nevada.

Our other expert witness is also a member of the Committee. I

mean by that, our other member who wanted to testify, the gentleman from Nevada. The gentleman is recognized.

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the State

of Nevada and the one-half million tourists who each year see the

magnificent Grand Canyon, I want to thank you for holding this

hearing, and it has taken a considerable amount of effort, I know,

to strike a balance between the need to protect our fragile Grand

Canyon environment and the air tourism industry, and it is greatly

appreciated. With that, Mr. Chairman, what I would like to do is

submit my comments for the record at this time, and yield back the

balance of my time for you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF NEVADA

Mr. Chairman:

On behalf of the State of Nevada and the 1/2 million southern Nevada tourists

who each year see the magnificence of the Grand Canyon by air—thank you for

holding this important oversight hearing today.

Your considerable efforts to strike a balance between the need to protect our fragile Grand Canyon environment and the air tourism industry is greatly appreciated.

Tourism is a mainstay of our economy in Nevada and the air tour industry has

been a vital part of Nevada’s tourism industry for more than 70 years.

Today, I speak to you as both a member of Nevada’s Congressional Delegation,

deeply concerned about the future of our air tour industry, as well as a long-time

aviator.

In addition to being a retired commercial airline and military pilot, I served as

a combat pilot in the Vietnam and Persian Gulf War.

I am a graduate of the Air Force’s Air Command and Staff College, and Air War

College, and recently retired as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserves.

I highlight my aviation experience to demonstrate my personal interest in this

issue and the air tour industry. Our successful Nevada based, small business enterprises have earned the support of our entire Nevada Congressional delegation, as

well as Governor Kenny Guinn.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, to put it in military terms—the National Park

Service (NPS) has launched a pre-emptive strike against Nevada’s air tour community.

13

I concur entirely with the assessment of the United States Air Tour Association

(USATA).

If the Park Service is permitted to redefine the parameters of natural quiet to include an aircraft noise threshold of 8 decibels below natural ambient sound—or anything even close to that—the southern Nevada air tour industry will be put out of

business.

And, while the Park Service’s action of redefining natural quiet does not in itself

eliminate air touring over the Grand Canyon, it certainly lays the foundation for

such an action.

Once this new noise threshold is in place, the Park Service’s next step may be

to press for regulations requiring all aircraft flying over the Grand Canyon to meet

this unreasonable sound limit.

Then, the coup de grace—the air sound threshold will be adopted for all mechanized vehicles using NPS roads, water and snow—meaning trucks, boats and

snowmobiles.

Throughout my aviation career, I have had the pleasure of flying many aircraft,

but have never seen or heard of a powered aircraft which can meet an 8 decibel

below natural ambient sound noise limit.

What is most disturbing, Mr. Chairman, is that this latest NPS action is unwarranted. As acoustic experts will testify to today, the Park Service has absolutely no

reasonable scientific basis for this action—just as Superintendent Arnberger admitted before this Committee during last September’s hearing.

The agency has simply decided that the Special Federal Air Regulation (SFAR)

50-2 did not meet the agency’s personal objectives, so they want to change the

ground rules in midair.

A decade ago, SFAR 50-2 was implemented in the Grand Canyon. It more than

meets the Congressional mandates of the Overflights Act contained in Public Law

100-91 which called for the substantial restoration of natural quiet in the Canyon.

The regulation made the skies over the Grand Canyon safer, and it reduced aircraft noise significantly.

The agency’s own analysis revealed that noise complaints following implementation of SFAR 50-2 decreased by 92 percent.

However, we now see the NPS trying to take these regulations one step further— or should I say leaps and bounds further.

Indeed, one has to wonder if the Park Service or FAA even has the statutory authority under the decade-old, Overflights Act to implement further regulations in

the Grand Canyon.

Furthermore, I am extremely concerned about aviation safety as a result of this

redefinition of natural quiet. On the surface, they want us to believe that these actions are in the name of environmental protection.

In reality, the Park Service appears to be seeking nothing less than an expansion

of its own regulatory authority. Frankly, this latest NPS action is a back door approach to airspace regulation.

I addressed this issue in the July ’97 Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on

S.268.

That legislation would have statutorily turned regulatory authority for national

park airspace over to the National Park Service.

I opposed that action on the fundamental basis that it would throw America’s national airspace system into chaos—who would manage or even regulate it—Mr.

Chairman, this is de-ja-vu.

Since Congress won’t give the Park Service the statutory authority it seeks, the

agency is using political maneuvering and political pressure on the FAA to get what

it wants.

All under the guise of preserving and protecting the environment!

What more environmentally-sensitive way is there to see the Grand Canyon than

by air? Air tour passengers leave no footprints, dispose of no garbage, flick no burning cigarettes into the brush.

They simply fly over, take a few pictures, and return with lifelong memories of

spectacular sights. More than 62 percent of them are either very young, elderly, disabled or suffer from other health problems which makes walking into the Grand

Canyon unrealistic.

Others who visit the Canyon by air are on tight family vacation or international

visitor schedules, and simply don’t have the time or inclination to hike the

backcountry.

Mr. Chairman, according to a study by the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, air

touring contributes more than $374.8 million directly to the Nevada tourism economy each year. Air touring is a vital part of the Las Vegas and Nevada landscape.

We want to keep it that way,

14

Our state has been very concerned about the future of this industry, and two

weeks ago the Nevada Legislature passed an emergency resolution—SJR 21—supporting the southern Nevada Grand Canyon air tour industry.

In SJR 21, the Nevada Senate and Assembly jointly expressed its concern regarding any proposal to redefine the space in which aircraft may be flown over the

Grand Canyon.

SJR 21 urged the Congress of the United States to ‘‘. . . effect an outcome for the

southern Nevada air tour industry that will protect, support and sustain the viability of this significant contributor to the tourism economy of the State of Nevada and

the enjoyment of visitors and sightseers.’’

I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of this joint Resolution—SJR 21—

be entered into today’s hearing record.

Mr. Chairman, we are all environmentalists in one way or another. We all seek

protection for our natural resources.

But, the environment can be balanced with America’s other important industries

and activities. As Members of Congress, we have been entrusted with the responsibility of striking a harmony between the needs and requirements of all citizens.

This latest action by the Park Service is not about balance. It’s about dismantling

this vital segment of the tourism industry piece-by-piece. We have a duty—a responsibility—to not let that happen.

I sincerely appreciate your leadership in helping to ensure that a balance is

struck which adequately preserves our environment as well as a tourism industry

that is so vital to the State of Nevada.

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman’s testimony will be included in the

record, and I appreciate your comment.

It has always been my prerogative—the young lady is free to join

us, if she would like to, and also we may want to ask you some

questions.

Ms. BERKLEY. Would you like me to sit down?

Mr. HANSEN. Well, whatever; if you have some place to go and

you are in a hurry, we understand.

Ms. BERKLEY. I think I am all right for the immediate timebeing, but I have people that will be going to my office very soon

to be conducting issues.

Mr. HANSEN. Well, we appreciate your testimony. Thank you so

much.

Let me just say, it has been kind of the custom of this Committee, since we have taken it, to go to the members before the

chairman. As I stated earlier, I do have to go to this Cox Commission. I am going to turn the chair over to the gentleman from Tennessee. He was also the chairman of the FAA Committee, which we

feel it very appropriate that he would take the chair for a few moments.

I would like to comment on your testimony. Like you, we receive

a lot of attention on this particular issue. Between this and Gettysburg, I don’t know if I have had any more calls. There seems to

be a tight issue going on up there, and we just get inundated with

letters from both areas.

As I mentioned to the gentleman from Minnesota, I thought we

resolved part of this in the 1980’s, when we did that overflight

thing; possibly we did not. We have had as many experts on this

as you can imagine—both sides—one of the reasons we think this

thing should be resolved.

It is amazing to me how many letters that I have received from

foreign visitors. I mean, why they even take the time to write

amazes me, especially from Germany, from England, Japan; people

saying, ‘‘We really don’t have a lot of time, but we did go to’’ St.

15

George, Las Vegas, Kanab, wherever it may be. ‘‘We did have this

grand opportunity to fly over this canyon.’’ And I have found that, as you pointed out, and I agree with your

statement, that one of the exhilarating, almost spiritual experiences for a lot of those people is to look over what many people consider one of the wonders of the world. Not everybody has the time

or the ability to walk down the Bright Angel or the Kaibab, or run

the river. I have done both of those canyons, and I have run the

river three times, and it is a great experience and one of the things

that people soon develop a great constituency for the Grand Canyon.

I honestly feel that it is kind of important that we somehow come

up with some moderation of this thing to resolve it at this time,

if we possibly can. You would be surprised at the way some people

respond to this. We received a number of letters that I thought

were almost humorous saying, ‘‘Well, why do you even let them on

the ground?’’ I mean, ‘‘let’s turn this thing around. Just have it for

overflights and close the south rim and the north rim because more

people could enjoy it that way than they could on the ground.’’ It

was kind of startling to me to read things such as this.

Also, a number of private pilots, which I am a private pilot, but

I don’t think that I subscribe to this, saying ‘‘I resent those people

walking up and down those trails. Why do I have to see them when

I am up there?’’ So you kind of get both sides of this argument, and

it does not always come out the same way.

I am amazed, as I was talking to the Williams Company, who

will probably be the next leaders in small aviation engines, which

will be a real threat to Continental and Liconmen, that they are

building the most powerful engine ever built that is so quiet, you

can’t hear it 50 feet away. What will that mean? When you get

down to the point that you can’t hear them up there, what does

that have on it?

So, you are stuck with a number of these issues that are staring

you in the face, and a very tough issue. I would like to say that

I appreciate—I don’t think that there is anybody here that is going

to testify today that their intentions are not pure, and they are trying to do what is best for the park and for those who want to visit

the park, and I would appreciate that.

With that said, I would like to turn the chair over to my good

friend from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan, and I will run over to this Cox

Commission thing which I mentioned to you. It is a command performance; I can’t get out of it, and I wish I wasn’t part of that committee.

Anyway, the gentleman from Puerto Rico.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no

questions for our colleague. Thank you very much for your testimony.

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Ranking Member. I can tell you that,

having been raised in Las Vegas, I know that area well, and I

loved, as a kid, going to Red Rock Canyon and the Valley of Fire

and the Grand Canyon. Of course, my children and I enjoy it as

well. So this was not something that I just jumped on the bandwagon, because I do appreciate the issue of environmental sensitivity and preserving those natural wonders.

16

I can also tell you that in the testimony, if I can emphasize the

fact that in the last 17 weeks that I have served in Congress, I

have had an opportunity to interact with people across the country

that I have never had an opportunity to interact with before. When

I tell them I am from Las Vegas, of course, that always creates

some interest in people anyway, but I can tell you, almost to a person, when they tell me they have come to my district or they are

planning a trip to Las Vegas, they invariably tell me about their

time in the Grand Canyon and how they flew over the Grand Canyon, and how that was one of the highlights of their trip. I never

appreciated it, since I am a local and I just took it for granted, how

many of our tourists do come to southern Nevada in order to take

that plane ride, take a helicopter ride, but mostly those plane rides

with the tour companies to see the splendor of the Grand Canyon.

Even as late as last evening, when I was at a reception that had

absolutely nothing to do this, I met a gentleman from New York

who told me that for his mother’s 70th birthday, that was his gift

to her, and it was the highlight of her life.

So I am feeling very comfortable about my testimony and my position, and I know there are several other people here from my district that will testify as well.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you very much.

Mr. DUNCAN. [presiding] Thank you. Mr. Vento?

Mr. VENTO. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate your testimony. Obviously, the Park Service has followed the law passed in the 100th Congress which says that, ‘‘no

aircraft audible in the park at certain areas.’’ They divided the

park into apparently two zones. Apparently, what the concern here

is about the zone which is about half the park, I guess—I don’t

know if it is quite half the park or not; it looks like it is less than

that—but where there would be no audible noise for 75 percent of

the time. So the issue is, you don’t disagree with that goal, do you?

Ms. BERKLEY. I think there are experts here that can talk about

the actual noise levels, and I think they are going to be giving you

a demonstration.

Mr. VENTO. No, I am just talking about the goal. Do you agree

with the goal?

Ms. BERKLEY. Yes.

Mr. VENTO. And so it isn’t the question here what constitutes

this. Now, obviously, if my colleague from Utah is correct in terms

of less aircraft that are more quiet or engines that are obviously

for power and safety and other reasons and administrative purposes, there are exceptions in this law that was passed. But I think

that we can agree on the goal and it is just a question of what the

effect is. If in fact, the Canyon, as an example, amplifies some of

the noises, acts as a natural amplifier, that would be a concern. It

is not just the noise that emanates from the internal combustion

engine, or whatever is being used in this case, but it is the fact of

how that is characterized.

The laws of sound are pretty solid. I don’t think that anyone has

modified them just lately. In fact, most scientists will tell you that

it is one of the few absolutes. Acoustical science itself, in terms of

how it behaves, is a little more complex.

17

Ms. BERKLEY. Although it is my understanding that evidence to

the contrary suggests that the natural walls of the Grand Canyon

act to not amplify the sound, but to buffer it.

Mr. VENTO. No, I know this. I read your testimony, but that depends on where you are standing, I expect. But that is the acoustical part of it, not the law of sound.

In any case, we will be looking over it, but as long as we agree

upon the goals here, then I think we will have to—you know, clearly when we were dealing with this initially, it was aircraft below

the rim or above the rim, what the height was. Safety factors are

also important here. The Park Service, I think they have come

along slowly—too slowly in my estimation. I think the real issue

here, and I expect that what is happening, too, is that there is actually a growth in the number of these flights that have taken

place from when this law was passed in 1988. I will have to ask

the aircraft industry that. But I expect that more and more folks

are enjoying it, and this might be one of the other issues.

There are other factors just besides noise and safety; the distance

between aircraft and a number of other factors, as I recall when

we were dealing with this, that were important.

I thank the chairman.

Ms. BERKLEY. I would like to beg your indulgence. I have a group

of students from Las Vegas waiting in my office for me.

Mr. DUNCAN. You go right ahead. I was just going to say, Ms.

Berkley, that Chairman Hansen and I held a joint hearing on this

a couple of years ago in St. George, Utah, and we got into all of

this. But then they took us on a flight across the Grand Canyon,

and it was really a real highlight of our trip out there. In fact, because of time constraints, we would not have seen that if we had

not done it in that way.

We want to thank you very much for coming to testify, and you

are certainly excused to go on to your other duties.

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you. My greatest concern is that the regulations would be so onerous that it would lead to the elimination of

this very important component of the tourism industry.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.

We will now call up the first panel, and we have a very distinguished panel. We have Ms. Jackie Lowey, who is the Deputy Director of the National Park Service. We have my friend, Mr. David

Traynham, who is the Assistant Administrator for Policy, Planning,

and International Aviation with the Federal Aviation Administration. We have Mr. John Alberti, who is with JR Engineering, and

Mr. Alan R. Stephen, who is president of Twin Otter International,

Ltd.

What we do is to proceed in the order in which the witnesses are

listed on the call of the hearing, and that means that, Ms. Lowey,

we will begin with you, please.

18

STATEMENT OF JACKIE LOWEY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE; ACCOMPANIED BY WES HENRY, RESEARCH ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, AND

ROBERT ARNBERGER, SUPERINTENDENT, GRAND CANYON

NATIONAL PARK

Ms. LOWEY. Thank you. It is good to see you again. I was at that

hearing in Utah. Let me first say I was pleased to listen to the last

words that Congresswoman Berkley said because I think that

where we are is not inconsistent with that at all. We continue to

believe that there is a balance that is possible.

As you know, the statutory mission of the National Park Service

is to preserve this Nation’s natural and cultural resources

unimpaired for future generations. In the case of Grand Canyon, I

think there is no disagreement here, as Congressman Vento pointed out, that the mission, particularly as it relates to the Overflights

Act, includes protecting the natural quiet or the natural sounds of

the park.

Specifically, in the Act Congress passed, Congress said, and I

quote, ‘‘noise associated with aircraft overflights at Grand Canyon

is causing a significant adverse effect on natural quiet and the experience of the park.’’ So we have a clear mandate with the FAA

to achieve a goal. I think what has been a question among many

is the implementation of that law in terms of how we measure our

progress in achieving the goal that is clear.

The Park Service and the FAA continue to work together as partners on a rulemaking process to achieve the goal of substantial restoration of natural quiet, which has been defined by the Park Service as 50 percent of the park being quiet 75 percent or more of the

day. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in

1998, upheld that definition of substantial restoration of natural

quiet.

The Park Service, in cooperation with the FAA, continues to

work on the administrative implementation of the Overflights Act.

We anticipate that a new rule, along with new flight routes, will

be fully implemented by the summer of 2000. As part of this rulemaking process, we have made refinements to the methodology we

will use to evaluate progress toward the achievement of the goal.

I am pleased to discuss those with you today, and, I think, have

an opportunity to clarify what are some misconceptions about that.

First, let me say, to know when half the park is quiet 75 percent

of the time, we have to know what that quiet means. The natural

sounds of the park, from the Colorado River, from animals, to the

wind, make up the natural sounds of the park, or the natural quiet

of the park, which is not quiet at all. We have to determine these

natural ambient sound levels because they are an essential factor

in determining whether noises are audible. Second, we have to determine when noise from overflying aircraft is going to reach the

point that natural quiet is disturbed or, conversely, when it is restored.

The first modification that we have made is in a refinement to

the calculations of the natural ambient or baseline natural sound

levels of the park. With the size of Grand Canyon and its highly

varied terrain and vegetation patterns, we have found that no single acoustic level adequately reflects the range of natural sounds

19

present. To more accurately portray the range of natural sounds

present, we have established a series of natural ambient zones,

each representing a level of sound that is natural quiet for that

part of the park.

Initially, we based our natural ambient acoustic zones just on

vegetation communities as the single best predictor of acoustic conditions. More recently, we have recognized that, while these three

initial zones do account for the vast majority of the park, they do

not account for the variation by what is the major natural sound

producer in the center of the park, the Colorado River. So we have

added two new ambient acoustic zones. The first, called the ‘‘Colorado River Rapids,’’ is for the natural river noise is great. The second is for what we label ‘‘water-affected’’ areas, that is, areas with

perennial running water. In sum, we now have five natural ambient sound zones to characterize the park into scientifically meaningful, data-based acoustic units, each with a different level of natural quiet.

The second change we have made in our methodology has to do

with when we and the FAA determine that noise from overflying

aircraft will reach a level that quiet is disturbed. The FAA has considerable expertise at measuring the impact of aircraft noise. However, most of their expertise and most of their experience has been

in modeling the impact of that noise around airports in urban cities, which, as a New Yorker, I can say is something that is quite

different than Grand Canyon. Therefore, the National Park Service

and the FAA have spent years working together to adapt the modeling that they have to make it more appropriate for a park environment.

In the 1994 report to Congress that the National Park Service

issued, when we first proposed the definition of natural quiet in

Grand Canyon, we said that it should be no aircraft audible. That

was a single standard to apply equally throughout the park.

Now, in the notice that we have put out, we are proposing to

move to a dual-zone standard to use in different parts of the park,

two different standards for evaluating the impact of aircraft noise.

In certain areas of the park, we will use a noticeability standard—

the noise threshold at which one who is actively engaged in other

things notices noise. It is what has been used in previous FAA

rulemakings on Grand Canyon. In other areas of the park, we will

use an audibility standard—the noise threshold at which an attentive listener can hear noise.

We are proposing to use the noticeability standard for an area

that we have designated as zone 1, and the audibility standard as

an area we have designated as zone 2, and I believe we have provided—I would be happy to provide for the Committee a map of

those two different zones. But, in short, zone 1 contains approximately one-third of the park’s area: the developed areas along the

south rim, the much smaller developed area along the north rim,

the Marble Canyon area, the Sanup area below Whitmore Rapids,

and zone 2 constitutes the large continuous core of the park.

We believe that by using these different approaches in different

areas of the park, we can get the most accurate picture possible as

a way to measure the presence and impact of aircraft noise on the

20

park, taking into account different resources and uses that occur in

different areas.

Let me be clear that what we are talking about is assessing aircraft noise. What we are not saying—and I think there has been

quite a bit of misunderstanding about this—we are not saying that

aircraft will be barred from those areas if they cannot achieve that

level of sound. We are saying this is the most accurate way to just

get a picture of what the actual cumulativel sound is in the park.

We are going to continue to present this information in a public

forum and work to get the best possible scientific information possible. I think that science is clearly something where you continue

to improve, you continue to get more precise, and we believe that,

by implementing both of these, we have done that. We will continue to welcome the active participation of all interested parties;

there are many affected—Native American tribes; there are the

American people; there are the air tour operators, and the environmental community. We do believe that balance is possible and that

we can move forward and support a healthy air tour industry and

preserve precious resources.

With that, I open myself to any questions or yield to the gentleman.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lowey follows:]

STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE LOWEY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our efforts to substantially restore ‘‘natural quiet’’ at Grand Canyon National Park. As you know, the statutory mission of

the National Park Service is to preserve the natural and cultural resources of National Parks unimpaired for future generations. In the case of Grand Canyon National Park, there is no disagreement that this mission includes protecting the natural quiet or the natural sounds of the park, and that aircraft overflights have an

impact on that resource. Congress recognized this in Public Law 100-91, commonly

known as the ‘‘Overflights Act,’’ when it said ‘‘noise associated with aircraft overflights at the Grand Canyon National Park is causing a significant adverse effect

on the natural quiet and experience of the park.’’ The Overflights Act gave the National Park Service and the Federal Aviation Administration a mandate to achieve

a ‘‘substantial restoration of natural quiet’’ in the park. A key question in the implementation of that law is how we measure our progress in achieving that goal.

The National Park Service and the FAA are continuing to work as partners on

a rulemaking process to achieve the goal of substantial restoration of natural quiet,

which has been defined by the NPS as 50 percent of the park being quiet 75 percent

of the day. This definition was included by the FAA in the rules promulgated in

1996 under the Overflights Act. In response to suits brought by the air tour industry, environmental groups, and a Native American Tribe, the United States Court

of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1998 upheld this definition of substantial

restoration of natural quiet. The National Park Service, in cooperation with the

FAA, is continuing to work on the administrative implementation of the Overflights

Act. We anticipate that a new rule, along with new flight routes, will be fully implemented by the summer of 2000. As part of this rulemaking process, we have made

refinements to the methodology we will use to evaluate progress toward the achievement of substantial restoration of natural quiet. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss these refinements with the Subcommittee today.

To know when half of the park is quiet 75 percent of the time, we have to know

what ‘‘natural quiet’’ means. There obviously are natural sounds in the park, from

such sources as the Colorado River, the wind, and animals, that are part of the

park’s natural quiet. We have to determine the natural ambient sound levels because the characteristics of that ambient sound are an essential factor in determining whether other noises are audible. Second, we have to determine when noise

from overflying aircraft is going to reach the point that natural quiet is disturbed

or, conversely, when we have achieved a substantial restoration of natural quiet.

We have made refinements in our methodology on both factors.

21

First, the NPS has refined its calculations of the natural ambient or baseline natural sound levels of the park. With the size of Grand Canyon National Park and

its highly varied terrain and vegetation patterns, we have found that no single

acoustic level adequately reflects the range of natural sounds present. To more accurately portray the range of natural sounds present, we have established a series of

natural ambient zones, each representing a level of sound that is the natural quiet

for that part of the park.

Initially, we based our natural ambient acoustic zones just on vegetation communities, as the best single predictor of acoustic conditions. This is largely for two reasons: (1) because wind passing through the foliage is one of the primary sound producers, the type and amount of foliage in that vegetation community provides a

strong indicator of the sound levels present there; and (2) vegetation communities

are also good indicators of the types of animals, birds, and insects likely to be

present and the sounds that they may produce. Accordingly, we developed acoustic

zoning that followed the three major vegetation communities present in the park:

(1) desert scrub; (2) pinyon-juniper woodlands: and (3) sparse conifer forest, each

with a specific level of sound that is equated with natural quiet.

More recently, we have recognized that while these initial three zones account for

the vast majority of the park’s area, they do not account for the variation caused

by what is the major natural sound producer in the center of the park, the Colorado

River. And, like the park itself, the river too, is acoustically complex. It contains

world-class whitewater reaches that are connected by often quite lengthy relatively

flat stretches between the rapids. In the immediate area of the major falls and rapids the sound levels seem almost thunderous while in the connecting reaches the

relative stillness is just as impressive. So to better characterize the natural quiet

in the proximity of the river, we have added two new ambient acoustic zones. The

first, called the ‘‘Colorado River Rapids,’’ is for areas where the natural river noise

is great. The second is for what we label ‘‘water-affected’’ areas, that is, areas with

perennial running water but outside the previously described ‘‘Colorado River Rapids’’ areas.

In sum, we now have five natural ambient sound zones, to characterize the park

into scientifically meaningful, data-based acoustic units, each with a different level

of natural quiet. These new zones add a degree of precision to our modeling that

had previously not been possible. We strive to constantly improve our information

and our science. We think the new ambient categorization does that.

The second change we have made in our methodology has to do with when we

and the FAA determine that noise from overflying aircraft will reach the level that

natural quiet is disturbed. The FAA has considerable expertise at measuring the impact of aircraft noise; however, most of their experience has been in measuring the

impact of flights over urban areas near airports. Therefore, the NPS and the FAA

have spent several years working on adapting existing models to make them more

appropriate for use in a national park setting.

Initially, in the 1994 report to Congress mandated by the Overflights Act, the National Park Service proposed that natural quiet in Grand Canyon National Park

should mean that there are ‘‘no aircraft audible’’ in the park. This was a single

standard, to apply equally through the park.

Now, we have moved to a dual zone approach, to use in different parts of the park

two different standards for evaluating the impact of aircraft noise. In certain areas

of the park, we will use a ‘‘noticeability’’ standard—the noise threshold at which one

who is actively engaged in other things ‘‘notices’’ noise. It is what has been used

in previous FAA regulatory actions on Grand Canyon overflights. In other areas of

the park we will use an ‘‘audibility’’ standard—the noise threshold at which an attentive listener can actually ‘‘hear’’ noise. The noticeability standard allows for more

noise before natural quiet is considered ‘‘disturbed,’’ the audibility standard allows

for less noise.

We are proposing to use the noticeability standard for the area we have designated as zone 1, and the audibility standard for the area we have designated as

zone 2.

Zone 1 contains approximately one-third of the park’s area. It contains the developed area along the south rim, the much smaller developed area along the North

rim, the Marble Canyon Area, and the Sanup area below Whitmore Rapids. The developed areas on each rim are zoned for relatively high visitor and park support

uses; noise levels are higher in these relatively high use areas. Zone 2 constitutes

the large, continuous core of the park. We believe that using these different approaches in the different areas of the park is the most accurate way to measure the

presence and impact of aircraft noise on the park, taking into account the different

resources and uses that occur in the different areas of the park.

22

We believe that the cumulative effect of these two refinements—natural ambient

sound zoning and the dual noise standard zones—is to get an accurate portrayal of

acoustic conditions in Grand Canyon National Park so that we can achieve our Congressional mandate of substantial restoration of natural quiet. We will continue to

present this information and analysis through various public processes and we will

continue to work to get the best possible scientific information available.

We welcome the active participation of all interested parties—affected Indian

Tribes, the air tour industry, environmental organizations, and the American people. It is a great challenge, but I do believe that balance is possible and that we

can protect the park’s precious resources, respect tribal lands, and continue to support a healthy air tour industry.

This concludes my testimony, I would be happy to answer any of your questions.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Lowey.

Next we will hear from Mr. Traynham.

STATEMENT OF DAVID TRAYNHAM, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR POLICY, PLANNING AND INTERNATIONAL

AVIATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; THOMAS

CONNNOR, OFFICE OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Mr. TRAYNHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the

Subcommittee. It is a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the FAA’s role in working with the National Park Service to

achieve substantial restoration of natural quiet at the Grand Canyon. I would like to express our appreciation for your continued

leadership concerning national park overflights and reiterate our

commitment to working with the Park Service and the Congress to

reduce the impact of aircraft overflights on all of our national

parks.

My testimony today will focus on FAA’s part in using the revised

NPS methodology to do this. We have worked closely with the Park

Service over the past few years to balance various commercial and

governmental interests within the parameters of our specific mandates and jurisdictions. We are cooperatively developing policies,

rules, and processes that preserve, to the extent practicable, the

natural resources without compromising aviation safety.

The FAA and the National Park Service have two distinct missions: Federal law and Congressional policy mandate that the authority to control air traffic over our Nation’s air space resides solely with the FAA, while the Park Service is charged with the management of the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system. I believe that we have proven over the past few

years that, although these missions are separate and distinct, they

are not necessarily incompatible.

Together we have developed a process to manage the impact of

aircraft overflights to the national park system. This process is

simple. National Park Service sets standards for noise levels in our

national parks and the FAA integrates these standards into our

regulation of the airspace. Within this framework, the National

Park Service consults with the FAA on developing further actions

to aid the substantial restoration of natural quiet, as well as planning for the development of comprehensive noise management plan

for air tour operations over the Grand Canyon. For our part, the

FAA offers advice and expertise on aircraft noise. This system has

proven effective both in preserving our distinct missions and in

progressing steadily toward natural quiet goals.

23

As you know, the Park Service has made a number of revisions

to its noise standards and policies. In particular, in January of this

year, the Park Service published its new Dual Noise Standard in

The Federal Register as a new basis for evaluating restoration of

natural quiet in the Grand Canyon. The new standard reflects

whether a person is actively listening for aircraft or not, and other

factors based on land use, visitor activity, and geography.

In addition, as Deputy Director Lowey has testified, the National

Park Service has modified the use of average natural ambient

sound levels for a noise impact threshold with a two-zone system:

one for higher noise sensitivity and one for lower noise sensitivity.

This will more precisely reflect the acoustic conditions of the park.

The FAA plans to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking soon

that will modify existing regulations governing aircraft flights over

the Grand Canyon. The NPRM will reflect the changes in the National Park Service’s policies. It will make use of the Integrated

Noise Model. This is the FAA’s standard computer methodology for

assessing and predicting aircraft noise impacts. This mode is a

computer program that predicts aircraft noise exposure. When certain types of information are input into the program, such as number of flights during the day and the types of planes making those

flights, the model can produce information on the noise that those

flights will generate. This has been used at approximately 400 airports in the United States, as well as another 200 or so overseas,

and it has been found to be a very accurate predictor of noise impacts.

The FAA has continually refined and updated the computer program to reflect advances in acoustic science and the accurate evaluation of unique regional environments. In line with this, the FAA

produced a modified version of the INM to provide specific data appropriate to aircraft noise conditions in the Grand Canyon. This

data will then be used to assess the noise exposure implications of

the actions proposed in our upcoming NPRM.

At this juncture, the FAA has not yet completed the NPRM, and

therefore, it is premature to discuss the specific details. However,

the FAA has committed to promulgating fair and equitable rules

regarding aircraft operations, and as always, our highest priority

is safety. Our NPRM will ensure the highest level of aviation safety

possible while following the National Park Service guidelines and

policies.

We believe that together the NPS and the FAA are well on the

way to achieving our common goal of substantial restoration of natural quiet in the Grand Canyon, as well as other national parks,

without eliminating safe access by the air. It has been, and will

continue to be, our policy in managing the navigable airspace over

these natural treasures to exercise leadership in achieving an appropriate balance between efficiency, technological practicability,

and environmental concerns, while maintaining the highest level of

safety.

I thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you this

morning. This concludes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman,

and I would be pleased to answer any questions when we get to

that point.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Traynham follows:]

24

STATEMENT OF DAVID F. TRAYNHAM, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR POLICY, PLANNING, AND INTERNATIONAL AVIATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

It is a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) role in working with the National Park Service (NPS) to achieve

the substantial restoration of natural quiet in Grand Canyon National Park

(GCNP). I would like to express our appreciation for your continued leadership concerning national park overflights and reiterate our commitment to working with

NPS and the Congress to reduce the impact of aircraft overflights on our national

parks. My testimony today will focus on FAA’s part in using the revised NPS methodology to achieve statutorily required restoration of natural quiet.

This Administration has committed significant time and effort to developing specific plans to restore natural quiet to the GCNP and to formulating a national policy

and process to manage aircraft overflights over national parks across the country.

In developing this policy, the Administration has taken care to balance the interests

of the numerous groups affected by rules concerning overflights. Many park visitors

and those whose duty it is to preserve park resources are concerned about aircraft

noise over park lands. Those charged with aviation safety are concerned about effectively managing the airspace. Those who provide access to park resources from the

air offer a unique and unparalleled way to view the parks, and are, of course, interested in continuing these operations. And, in the case of western parks especially,

Native American cultural and historical properties are affected by flights over or

near park land.

We have worked closely with NPS over the past few years to balance these various interests within the parameters of each of our specific mandates and jurisdictions, cooperatively developing policies, rules, and processes that preserve, to the extent practicable, the natural resources without compromising aviation safety. The

FAA and NPS have two distinct missions: Federal law and Congressional policy

mandate that the authority to control air traffic over our nation’s airspace resides

solely with the FAA, while the NPS is charged with the management of the natural

and cultural resources and values of the national park system. I believe that we

have proven over the past few years that although these missions are separate and

distinct, they are not necessarily incompatible.

Together, we have developed a process to manage the impact of aircraft overflights to the national park system: NPS sets standards for noise levels in our national parks and the FAA integrates these standards into our regulation of aircraft

and airspace. Within this procedure, NPS consults with the FAA on developing further actions to aid the substantial restoration of natural quiet, as well as planning

for the development of a comprehensive noise management plan for air tour operations over GCNP. For our part, the FAA offers advice and expertise on aircraft

noise. This system has proven effective both in preserving our distinct missions and

in progressing steadily towards the goal of substantially restoring natural quiet over

GCNP.

As you know, NPS has made a number of revisions to its noise standards and

policies. In particular, in January of this year, the NPS published its new ‘‘Dual

Noise Standard’’ in the Federal Register, 64 Fed. Reg. 3969 (January 26, 1999), as

the new basis for evaluating restoration of natural quiet in the GCNP. The new

standard reflects whether a person is actively listening for aircraft or not, and other

factors based on land use, visitor activity, and geography. In addition, as NPS Deputy Director Lowey has testified, the NPS has modified the use of average natural

ambient sound levels for a noise impact threshold with a two-zone system, one for

higher noise sensitivity and one for lower noise sensitivity. This will more precisely

reflect the acoustic conditions of the park.

The FAA plans to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) soon that will

modify existing regulations governing aircraft flights over the GCNP. The NPRM

will reflect these changes in the NPS policies. It will make use of the FAA’s standard computer methodology for assessing and predicting aircraft noise impacts, the

Integrated Noise Model (INM). To put it simply, the INM is a computer program

that predicts aircraft noise exposure. That is, when certain types of information are

input into the program, such as the number of flights during a day and the types

of planes making those flights, the INM can produce information on the noise that

those flights will generate.

The FAA has continually refined and updated the INM’s system capabilities, aircraft noise and performance data, and computer technology, to reflect advances in

acoustic science and the accurate evaluation of unique regional environments. In

line with this, the FAA produced a modified version of the INM to provide specific

data appropriate to aircraft noise conditions in the GCNP. This data will then be

25

used to assess the noise exposure implications of the actions proposed in the upcoming NPRM.

The FAA uses INM because of: (1) its widespread scientific acceptance; (2) its use

of methodology that conforms to industry and international standards; (3) its measurement-derived noise and performance data; (4) its ability to calculate noise exposure over varying terrain elevation; and (5) its adaptability and reliability for assessing a variety of situations, including noise impacts on park lands. This is the

type of computer modeling that supports the assessment of land use compatibility

and the restoration of natural quiet. The INM uses specific measures of noise for

these assessments. The data is analyzed to determine what changes may be needed

to air traffic management in order to achieve particular goals in noise management.

At this juncture, the FAA has not yet completed our analysis, and therefore, it

is premature to discuss the specific details of the upcoming NPRM. However, the

FAA is committed to promulgating fair and equitable rules regarding aircraft operations. And, as always, our highest priority is aviation safety. Our NPRM will ensure the highest level of aviation safety possible while following the NPS’ guidelines,

policies, and standards for achieving the substantial restoration of natural quiet in

the GCNP and other national park lands.

We believe that together the NPS and the FAA are well on the way to achieving

our common goal of substantial restoration of natural quiet in the GCNP and other

national parks, without eliminating safe access by air. It has been and will continue

to be our policy, in managing the navigable airspace over these natural treasures,

to exercise leadership in achieving an appropriate balance between efficiency, technological practicability, and environmental concerns, while maintaining the highest

level of safety.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. This concludes

my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you and members of the Committee may have.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Traynham.

My next witness is Mr. John Alberti of JR Engineering. Mr.

Alberti?

STATEMENT OF JOHN ALBERTI, OWNER, JR ENGINEERING

Mr. ALBERTI. Thank you, Honorable Chairman and members,

and thank you for inviting me back. My name is John Alberti; I

am the owner of JR Engineering. I am a big advocate of quiet in

the Grand Canyon as well. I got involved in this working with Papillon Grand Canyon Helicopters to develop an ultra quiet helicopter for air tour use. I am also a big fan of dealing honestly and

accurately with acoustics and of not moving the regulatory goal

post around, which is why we are here today.

Last September, we discussed the 1994 NPS Report to Congress,

revealed serious flaws in that report and demonstrated, contrary to

NPS claims then and this morning, that substantial restoration of

natural quiet had, in fact, occurred under SFAR-50-2. Measurements sponsored by the NPS in 1992 confirmed that. That data is

presented in my Attachment No. 1.

Today, the NPS wants to change the ground rules by which natural quiet is defined. They wish to substitute the ‘‘detectability’’ for

‘‘noticeability.’’ ‘‘Noticeability’’ occurs when a disinterested observer,

such as a hiker pausing to observe the view, becomes aware of the

sound of an aircraft. That is taken to occur three decibels above the

background ambient sound level. That has been the basis for current studies and current court decisions, including the one referred

to by Ms. Lowey today.

‘‘Detectability’’ occurs when an observer who is actively listening

for and straining to hear aircraft is just able to detect it. The notice

proposes that that occurs 8dB(A) below background ambient noise.

Thus, the direct effect is to lower the threshold by 11dB(A). The efVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:57 Feb 02, 2001 Jkt 067082 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\58698 pfrm02 PsN: 58698
26

fect of this will be that any tour aircraft operating near the Grand

Canyon would exceed that threshold, as would airliners, including

quiet stage three airliners up to 40 miles away.

In the notice, the NPS cites additional information available to

them which justifies this. We have reviewed the report that they

provided—it was prepared by Harris, Miller, Miller and Hanson— and this is not true. That report provides no new data, no new

measurements, no new observations, and no substantiation for a

political desire to change the ground rules. What it does do is it

does some arithmetic on some old measurements to convert from

one measurement of signal-to-noise ratio called d-prime to signalto-noise ratio measured in terms of dB(A), that produces some absurd results; for example, that an aircraft at 5.6 dB(A) would be

detectable, never mind that the entire spectrum falls below the

threshold of human hearing at every frequency. Yet no time did

any observer detect aircraft at anything near these sound levels. In

fact, the detectability criterion was based on detections by vigilant

observers in the canyon at an average threshold level of 30 dB(A).

Our analysis, in fact, of NPS data leads to 29 dB(A) as a conservative threshold of noticeability; that is what we recommend.

Moving ahead now to the HMMH study; if you turn to page 4,

table 1, this shows the actual sound levels of the spectra that were

used in this analysis.

You have four ambient levels, ranging from 17 to 46 dB(A), and

you have eight different aircraft—the quietest of which was at 29.6

dB(A) when detected. What happened was they simply subtracted

from these aircraft sound levels until they got predetermined values of d-prime and dB(A). There was no sound measurements, no

observations, just arithmetic.

If you turn to figure 1 on page 5, you can see the result of this.

This is an example at Hermit Basin where the ambient is 17.1

dB(A). All A-aircraft spectra were adjusted to 9.1 dB(A), exactly 8

dB(A) below that, in accordance with the proposal. Supposedly,

these are audible by that standard. In fact, they all lie at or below

the threshold of human hearing for young observers under ideal

conditions. You can’t hear these; more important, you can’t measure these. You cannot measure a sound that is 8 dB(A) below the

ambient. I do aircraft noise certification for the FAA for a living.

If I turned in data like this, the FAA would still be laughing. Yet

they are prepared to accept this data as a basis for noise regulations that will put the air tour industry out of business and affect

air commerce from general aviation to airliners.

But more to the point, these manipulations of data do not even

address the central issue; that is, should a noise regulation be

based upon noticeability to protect ordinary visitors to the canyon,

who have no vested interest in aircraft noise one way or the other?

Or should it be based on detectability to prevent an activist who

goes there just to listen for aircraft from being able to detect them?

I think the answer is perfectly obvious.

27

I see I have just run out of time. I hope you will read my recommendations in the written testimony. And at the appropriate

time, I would like to raise some questions about some of the testimony of the government witnesses.

And I thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Alberti follows:]

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Mr. DUNCAN. All right; thank you very much, Mr. Alberti.

Mr. Stephen.

STATEMENT OF ALAN R. STEPHEN, PRESIDENT, TWIN OTTER

INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Mr STEPHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I need to kind of explain why my testimony says Twin Otter International and my

name tag says Grand Canyon. Actually, I wear a lot of different

hats. Twin Otter International is the producer of the Vistaliner,

which is a quiet air tour airplane. There are 22 Vistaliners in service at the Scenic Grand Canyon Airlines that, at the Grand Canyon, carry about 35 percent of all the air tour passengers. The airplane meets a proposed category C quiet aircraft standard. I am

also an officer of Grand Canyon Airlines, which operates the

Vistaliner.

Mr. Vento, I go back to a meeting with you in 1986 and appearing when you were chairman in support of the 1987 legislation, and

I have been intimately involved as chief executive of Scenic Airlines

until we sold the air tour business, focused on the Vistaliner.

I also served as a member of the 9-member National Park Overflight Working Group which met over about a 15-month period.

There were nine of us; it was at times contiguous. It was always

lively. We were successful in making unanimous recommendations

to the Secretaries of Interior and Transportation on how to regulate overflight of the air tour aircraft over our national parks,

which is in legislation now before the House and the Senate, and

we urge your passage of that legislation. It is fair; it retains FAA’s

primary role to regulate the airspace and minimize the impact of

air tours on ground visitors in our national parks.

I have to go back to that 1987 legislation and really what was

at work there, as we had a very large volume—an unaccepted volume—of visitor complaints over aircraft activity at Grand Canyon.

And, too, there was—after the mid-air collision, there was concern

over safety. That 1987 legislation has been spectacularly successful

in those two regards. The air tour industry is much safer today because of the special airspace regulation. And visitor complaints,

which were averaging over 1,000 a year on 2.5 million visitors at

Grand Canyon in that timeframe, have declined down over the last

couple of years—and I don’t have the latest numbers, but it is in

the 2 to 3 dozen visitor complaints over aircraft sound at Grand

Canyon—2 to 3 dozen out of 5 million visitors a year. And to my

knowledge, we can’t track whether those complaints are air tourrelated, overflight of the major jet airway, or related to the Park

Service helicopter flight operations at Grand Canyon.

All of the time we met, not once did the Park Service offer its

definition for review. Everything was on the table during the National Park Overflight Working Group deliberations. We looked

into the legal ramifications of FAA regulating in this way and the

liable concerns, and so forth and so on. And some of us felt, frankly, betrayed when I saw a number that is ambient—a threshold of

natural quiet is ambient minus 8 dB. Unfortunately, I am not an

acoustics expert, and somebody like John Lobirdy has to give me

advice on it, but I have been told it is such a low threshold that

it is like listening to your blood circulating.

40

One thing we did agree on in the National Park Overflight Working Group unanimously was that there needed, as part of any regulation of our air tour industry, that there must be a recognition of

quiet aircraft and what that can do to reduce the intrusion of aircraft sound on ground visitors at the Grand Canyon and other national parks. And we—and as in your legislation—stated that there

must be incentives for aircraft to be converted to quiet aircraft, and

those incentives should include, but be not limited to, preferred altitudes and routes and relief from curfews and caps.

Unfortunately, we have talked about it and talked about it. We

have support from the FAA, and some of the National Park Service, from the environmental community, from the air tour industry.

And as we sit, not one single incentive has been offered at Grand

Canyon or anywhere else in the United States to my knowledge. I

just had a chance to look at a preview of the new rule that the FAA

is offering on making operational caps along with aircraft caps and

curfews, and there is, again, not one word of incentive on quiet aircraft, and will be subject to the same caps as conventional aircraft.

And I want to just make the pitch real simply as the following— because quiet aircraft is expensive, and so the airplanes have to be

larger. Larger capacity airplanes mean two things. One, if they are

quiet, they, in all probability, make less sound, therefore, less noticeable to ground visitors. And, two, is they replace multiple

flights. A 19-seat Vistaliner replaces 2 air tour flights by the 9-seat

Cessna 402 and 3 flights by the single-engine Cessna 206, which

has 5 passengers. And it makes plenty of sense to have these incentives, and I encourage this Committee to help us bring to this

final rule some meaningful incentives for quiet aircraft.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear, and I will be happy to answer your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stephen follows:]

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Stephen.

We will go first to Mr. Gibbons.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I will

tell you, I think this is one of the most elitist, nonsensical arguments that I have ever seen come before this Committee with this

bureaucracy.

Mrs. Lowey, I am going to ask everybody in this room to be

quiet, and I am going to establish the natural sound level of this

room. And I want you to demonstrate to this Committee what 8

decibels below the natural ambient sound level of this Committee

is.

Ms. LOWEY. Sir, let me just say that—— Mr. GIBBONS. Can you do that?

Ms. LOWEY. Can I—can I—I am sorry—can I—— Mr. GIBBONS. Can you demonstrate—— Ms. LOWEY. [continuing] demonstrate?

Mr. GIBBONS. [continuing] what 8 decibels below the ambient

sound level of this room is?

Ms. LOWEY. In order to measure 8 below ambient, I’d have to

first model, or measure the ambient. The question is confusing because qwe used the 8 db below ambient threshold to measure the

point at which one can hear aircraft noise the way you are using

it Mr. Gibbons.

Ms. LOWEY. I think that that has to do with the model, sir. The

way you plug it in—— Mr. GIBBONS. Well, don’t—— Ms. LOWEY. [continuing] if you—it is a—— Mr. GIBBONS. Don’t give me this. Just tell me, can you do that

today for this room? If we have everybody be quiet to establish a

zero base noise level in this room, can you demonstrate what 8

decibels below that is?

Ms. LOWEY. Yes, sir, because—if I could give you back an example; If you have a orchestra, the ambient sound of the orchestra,

you can still hear a piccolo playing. Why is it that you can pick out

the piccolo when you are listening to the orchestra? It is because

the piccolo has a different frequency than other instruments. That

is the nature of sound.

Mr. GIBBONS. So, in that model, if you have a canyon with a

river running and an airplane flying over it, you can still hear the

river running?

Ms. LOWEY. Sometimes. But the issue, sir, has to do with the

way various models calculate noise impact. Whenwe were making

the conversion from a Park Service model, which is how we started,

which was one that had a false frequency, to an FAA model, which

I am not a scientist, but I can tell you is A-weighted, which is an

average sound. We had to make adjustments to calculate audibility.

The Park Service muiltifrequency model was designed to do that,

the FAA model was not.

Mr. GIBBONS. Well, can you—— Ms. LOWEY. Taht’s how you come up with 8 dB below ambient.

It is the range that best respresents audibility.

Mr. GIBBONS. Can you measure the 8 decibels below?

Ms. LOWEY. Sir, I don’t have a machine here, but that can be

done, certainly.

48

Mr. GIBBONS. So it would have to be a machine out there to

measure every decibel level?

Ms. LOWEY. I have to say to you, sir, Grand Canyon is a quiet

place. It is quieter than this Committee room. Every bit of the

sound there—the ambient sounds—have been measured and validated and proven.

Mr. GIBBONS. Well, if it quieter than this room, then there is——

Ms. LOWEY. It is quieter than this room.

Mr. GIBBONS. [continuing] nothing in the Grand Canyon that

ever comes near it, that is going to establish this level.

Let me go to Mr. Traynham over here.

Can any aircraft meet a minus 8 decibel-level in that area?

Mr. TRAYNHAM. We think there will be significant parts of the

park using this new standard that will be able to be overflown by

tour operators.

So, yes.

Mr. GIBBONS. And meet the 8 decibel level, below ambient standard?

Mr. TRAYNHAM. When you are looking at the 8-decibel standard,

it is what the visitor hears. It is not what the aircraft is generating

in a noise sense.

But, in our proposed rule, we contemplate major parts of the

park being overflown by overflows.

Mr. GIBBONS. Well, if that is the case, what you are telling us

is you are going to do is move all the aircraft to where all the people are to make all the noise in one area, and then at which time

you will say, ‘‘ This is way too much, and we are going to reduce

the air flights over all of the park because of this noise level.’’

If that is the intent, then I think you are misrepresenting this

whole purpose here today.

Mr. Alberti?

Mr. ALBERTI. Yes?

Mr. GIBBONS. Can a minus 8 decibels be measured?

Mr. ALBERTI. You can—a person may be able to pick out the piccolo, as Ms. Lowey says. That is correct.

The thing is, you cannot measure a sound level of an aircraft

that is 8 dB below the ambient. You have to infer it; you have to

estimate it; you have to measure the sound when the aircraft is

much louder and then assume that it will still have the same spectrum shape, never mind that it is in a different position, at a different distance, different angle, different conditions. You have to

guess. You cannot accurately measure——

Mr. GIBBONS. So how could they establish that? And if somehow

it was violated——

Mr. ALBERTI. Well, that is——

Mr. GIBBONS. [continuing] what would be the penalty?

Mr. ALBERTI. That is a good question, which I guess I would pose

to them.

When an observer says, ‘‘I can just hear that aircraft,’’ and

pushes his button, I guess it is a fair question. How do you know

that aircraft was 8 dB(A) below the ambient?

I think you have—I think the answer will be that there is a great

deal of guesswork in that. It is not a direct measurement.

49

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Traynham, if you are going to modify VFR

flights over the Grand Canyon for tour operators, I suppose that

comes under part 91?

Is it your requirement that every VFR flight plan be filed at that

point?

Mr. TRAYNHAM. No, sir. What the model is being used for is to

develop policies, routes, flights—you know, how many flights are

going to be flying that will generate a certain noise contour in the

park.

We are not going to be measuring each flight to see whether it

meets a certain decible level. This exercise on the model is to, basically, generate a map that routes would be established that would

then be flown by the tour operators.

Mr. GIBBONS. But you are not going to force all the tour flights

over the populated areas of the park—the high-noise areas?

Mr. TRAYNHAM. No, sir.

Mr STEPHEN. Mr. Gibbons, could I comment on this—— Mr. GIBBONS. Yes.

Mr STEPHEN. [continuing] as an air tour flight?

There is two things here that we have to look at. And when we

put the visitor in the equation, and we saw the problem—visitors

are not hearing air tour airplanes. Now we are putting in noise for

noise sake.

And let me give you two orwellian-type conclusions you have got

to draw. The north rim of the Grand Canyon over which we fly— Grand Canyon Airlines; that is our route—is closed seven months

of the year, due to impassable snow. And, yet, in one of the route

proposals that is floating around, they would make the air tour

flights go farther north, north of the park boundaries and stay out

of the park. I don’t know where that logic comes. And as an airline

pilot, you know one of the major east-west jet airways overflies the

entire 277-mile length of the Grand Canyon. The FAA is contemplating eliminating the vital Las Vegas to Grand Canyon tour route

which is so important to tourism in southern Nevada, forcing the

airplanes that fly that to go south of the park boundary by 10 to

12 miles. So once the air tour flights out of Las Vegas going to

Grand Canyon are no longer flying over the national park, do we

have natural quiet, as defined?

The answer is, ‘‘No,’’ because every single air carrier, general

aviation, and military airplane that is on that overflight airway is

making sound that is detectable under this definition.

I don’t understand this.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I have got

a number of additional questions. This is a truly frustrating exercise, if you ask me.

Mr. DUNCAN. We will come back to you, Mr. Gibbons.

Mr. Vento.

Mr. VENTO. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman. I had earlier referenced

a question about the number of overflights of the Grand Canyon for

tourism purposes. Obviously, we are not trying to deal with the

commercial or the military airspace issue.

In any case, what has been the history since 1987 when the law

was passed? Has it decreased the number of visitors flying over the

park?

50

Ms. Lowey?

Ms. LOWEY. There has been an exponential increase. I believe it

is two to three times the magnitude there right now.

Mr. VENTO. Number of persons in perhaps larger aircraft?

Ms. LOWEY. For visitation, I have the superintendent who could

probably give visitation numbers better than I could.

Mr. VENTO. Well, you might want to do that for the record—— Ms. LOWEY. But—yes—— Mr. VENTO. [continuing] but I think that the issue is that more

and more persons are enjoying—— Ms. LOWEY. Right.

Mr. VENTO. [continuing] this particular experience, I guess. And

so that means the frequency of flights, I guess, where their helicopter, fixed wing, or whatever, have increased as well, so that the

interval between the flights is not as great as once might have

been. Is that correct?

Ms. LOWEY. Absolutely. There has been an exponential increase

in air tours over the park.

Mr. VENTO. I mean unless they have increased these—I mean I

understand the aircraft sizes have also increased. Is that correct?

Ms. LOWEY. Yes.

Mr. VENTO. And, of course, no one is—I mean anything that we

are talking about here has to deal with safety under some circumstances. But when you talk about the 8 decibels below the ambient, that is that there is normal noise within the canyon, and

in—do I understand right, that you are saying that one-third of the

canyon area will not be subject to that—— Ms. LOWEY. Correct.

Mr. VENTO. [continuing] 8 decibels below?

Ms. LOWEY. Correct.

Mr. VENTO. So that will be, in other words, in over those areas,

there will be an acceptance of a—— Ms. LOWEY. A higher level—essentially a higher level of noise.

Mr. VENTO. So I mean—so that would still—and can you give me

some idea of how many aircraft were anticipated in this proposed

rule? I don’t know, someone said you were changing the rule, but

there is no adoption of the rule yet, I guess, so I guess it is appropriate to reframe it.

But how many aircraft fly over that third that is not within this

new standard that is being contested, I guess? How many aircraft

fly in that area?

Ms. LOWEY. If I can, sir, just explain one thing which I think is

important to clarify.

We are not saying that in the area which we are proposing to

measure according to the ambient minus 8 standard, that unless

aircrafts meet that standard, they won’t be able to fly there. Tghis

methodolgy does not zone it in terms of—you can fly here or you

can’t fly there. It is a method to measure noise.

What we are doing is saying in some of the most sensitive areas

of the park, you can hear noise at that threshold. It is a threshold;

it is not really a standard, and perhaps we confuse it in calling it

that. And I say this again, in response to the questions asked earlier—we have measured that again. indeed one can hear aircrasft

at 8 db below the ambient. You can hear it. Audibility is an objecVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:57 Feb 02, 2001 Jkt 067082 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\58698 pfrm02 PsN: 58698
51

tive standard. You can hear it when you you talk about the

noticeability standard, you are talking about a nonobjective standard. You are talking about—at what point do people notice noise,

if they are doing other things. Audibility is a more objective calculation.

Mr. VENTO. So you can’t measure it exactly from the aircraft— plane, itself, in terms of what 8 decibels below it would be; it is a

question of what is happening on the ground. Of course, I was always told that, as I said the professor here—or the physicist

here—— [Laughter.]

[continuing] that is testifying in opposition to the proposed rule,

that the laws of sound, nobody—as far as I know—nobody has

modified those laws of sound, but the acoustics becomes more of an

art than a science.

I guess probably you would contest that, as an engineer, Dr.

Alberti?

Mr. ALBERTI. Whether it is an art or a science, I won’t even touch

it.

[Laughter.]

But I think that the measurements to determine what the

threshold of audibility is—that is detectability by somebody actively trying to hear a sound—those experiments were done at an

average threshold level of 30 decibels. Now, as I understand it, in

two-thirds of the park, the threshold will now be 12 dB. That is— I think they are proposing 20 dB for grassland areas and 8 dB

below that, which would be 12 dB(A). Nobody is detecting sounds

at that level. That is down near the threshold of human hearing.

This is a case where it is sort of an ambush by degrees. We start

out by selecting the ambient noise measurements—only the quietest ambient noise measurements—so we can get a nice low noise

level there. And then we go back and we take some detections that

occurred at much higher sound levels. We take that set of noise

measurements——

Mr. VENTO. But I think some of this depends upon where you

are, in terms of what you are experiencing. In other words, it also

depends upon—I mean it obviously is a floating standard because

the ambient level, in terms, obviously, have to be established for

various parts of the park. In one place, you may have trees and

winds and, you know, you may have waterfalls or rapids which are

making more noise—rock slides—— [Laughter.]

[continuing] I don’t know what else. Hummingbirds, you know,

cicadas, you know, so there is a lot of different things that can contribute to that. So it isn’t—I mean it is, obviously, you would have

to combine this. That is why they are using. Now, as I understand,

that this particular model that is being used, is an INS model; is

that right? Have I got that right? The integrated noise system?

Mr. TRAYNHAM. Integrated noise model—— Mr. VENTO. Yes, so this is used broadly.

Mr. TRAYNHAM. [continuing] the INM.

Mr. VENTO. I mean this is not something that is only being applied here. I mean there has been a lot more—if you think this is

a hot argument about noise, you ought to go to some of the suburVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:57 Feb 02, 2001 Jkt 067082 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\58698 pfrm02 PsN: 58698
52

ban neighborhoods in Minneapolis-St. Paul. In fact, even the Committee here has got into trying to help me out in that particular

venture, with regards to the Minnesota—— [Laughter.]

[continuing] Refuge.

Ms. Lowey, did you have any—I want to especially welcome

David Traynham, who is a long-time staff, Mr. Chairman, as you

know, on the Committee, and was instrumental in working with

our Committee, in terms of this law in 1987, I guess, now. So I welcome, David, good to see you and pleased with your role and performance in this new task.

Did you have further comments, Ms. Lowey?

Ms. LOWEY. No.

Mr. VENTO. I just, you know—I hope that we can work it

through. It is, you know, I guess one of the reasons that we don’t

get involved in writing the rules and regulations here, although I

would be happy to do it, Mr. Chairman, if that is all I had to do.

You know, I would be—but it is good to see you working on it, and

I certainly will take into consideration the comments. But the point

is, that I think that this experience, in terms, has been growing

greatly, and there is nothing wrong with that, and there is nothing

wrong with business and people enjoying this. I don’t, you know— but I hope that we can—I think there is some misunderstanding

about what is being pursued here and, hopefully, you can work it

out because this isn’t absolute quiet as I think some had feared it

might be.

Mr STEPHEN. Could I respond to your question? Would you have

time?

Mr. VENTO. With the indulgence of the chairman, I have overstated by time.

[Laughter.]

Mr STEPHEN. Can I give a—I think this—— Mr. DUNCAN. Go ahead, Mr. Stephen.

Mr STEPHEN. Okay—is Scenic Airlines had a peak year in 1981

of 211,000 passengers, and due to the international economy

tanking in during the early years of the Reagan Administration,

then, rebuilding. We went down to 93,000 passenger in 1994—excuse me—1984, in 1981 and 1984. And so, 1986 is not exactly a

great year, or 1987, as a baseline year. So you have to look back

further. So when you hear the word ‘‘exponential,’’ it is not the

truth.

In that timeframe, we flew Cessna 402’s. We had 40 of them for

211,000 passengers going to the Grand Canyon out of Las Vegas.

We had seven Vistaliners in service in 1987, and we carried

139,000 passengers. Going forward, we went up to a total of 18

Vistaliners. But what has happened in the last couple of years is

there has been massive consolidation in the Las Vegas/Grand Canyon tour market. There is one company today—it is called Scenic

Airlines—which operates 4 F-27’s at 40 passengers and 18

Vistaliners. And it is our successor company, after we sold the air

tour business. That is the consolidation of the Las Vegas Airlines,

Air Nevada, and Eagle Canyons. And, in that consolidation, alone,

nearly 40 Cessna 402’s that were in service 2 years ago are out of

the Grand Canyon. So there are less flights. And I don’t think the

53

history that is being presented is actually accurate either, if you

look at the 20-year history or look at what is really happening in

the nature of the tour business at Grand Canyon.

And, frankly—as you remember, sir—we felt that the overflight

legislation was good for the business, and that was why we supported it.

Mr. VENTO. You know I think—I appreciate that, but there ought

to be some common understanding about the numbers here which

shouldn’t be, you know—so that we could pin it down to understand what the growth is. This isn’t really about the growth, in any

case; it is about the noise.

Mr. Chairman, one statement I noted that came through—perhaps there is some misunderstanding about it, but my understanding is that the flight paths over the Grand Canyon are all already identified, so it isn’t just free, you know, you have to have

that planned, and there are certain areas already where you cannot

fly over the Grand Canyon. So the idea that they were somehow

going to be condensed by virtue of this new—this proposed rule,

which is being implemented, would really follow the existing—that

there are existing corridors where you can fly over, and flight plans

would have to be established already. So this would not be something new.

Now, one might argue that that has some problems with the

enjoyability or with the safety or with other factors, but I assume

that most of that had been taken into consideration. And that there

is less frequency for the bigger aircraft, or what the circumstances

are, I don’t know—but we should be able to agree upon the number

of aircraft. We may not agree upon what the measurement of this

acoustical art is, Mr. Chairman.

But I think if I am incorrect, I would hope somebody would correct me. If not, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, I appreciate it.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you; thank you very much.

This is at least the fourth or fifth hearing that I have participated in on this issue, and it has always been very interesting to

me. And I thought that—I know last year we had a group that everybody started out pretty far apart, and I thought we had worked

and come together and reached a compromise that was pretty acceptable to almost everyone. And that is the way I like to do

things, and so I was pleased about that. And I can tell you that

I have never liked noise or loud noises. I don’t even like to have

a television on in another room when I am reading in the next

room. So I thought that, you know, we should try to work on this

as much as possible.

On the other hand, I don’t suppose on any issue, you can ever

satisfy the extremists. And I have been amazed in all these hearings, that how few complaints there are, Mr. Stephen. You mentioned 2 or 3 dozens out of 5 million visitors. I have said before and

I still think this, that I am amazed that some of these groups can’t

stir up more complaints than that, because we have had this issue

around for several years, and I have just been amazed at how few

complaints there are about the noise there at the Grand Canyon.

But, Mr. Alberti, let me ask you this; you mentioned that some

of these levels are outside the range of human hearing. And I am

54

not sure—I am not a scientist or a technician—would you describe

for me what is 8 decibels below ambient? What is ambient, in this

situation? What does that mean? And what are we talking about

here? What would be the noise level of, say, a typical, quiet suburb,

that is not near an airport, let’s say, and does not have heavy traffic? Or what would be the noise level of someone who is hiking

through the Grand Canyon, stepping on leaves or twigs? Do you

have some examples like that that you can give to me?

Mr. ALBERTI. Yes. As far as a quiet suburb, actually the EPA has

set up 55 dB(A) as a desirable goal for residential communities.

Probably pretty typical of what you would find in a quiet suburb.

You might get down to maybe 50 or so when there is not much

traffic.

In this room, while we are talking, we are probably up in the 70-

plus dB(A) range. If we all stop talking, it might drop into the,

maybe, the 40’s, possibly.

Mr. DUNCAN. When we all stop talking and we are quiet, like Mr.

Gibbons tried to get everybody a while ago, that is about a 40?

Mr. ALBERTI. I think something in that ballpark. I think we will

have some discussion on that later, actually.

Mr. DUNCAN. And so the level we are trying to get to in the park

is 8 decibels below ambient?

Mr. ALBERTI. That is correct, if I understand. That is the proposal.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, what would be the—I know there are a great

many commercial airliners that fly across the Grand Canyon, because I have been on commercial planes myself, you know, and the

pilots will always announce the Grand Canyon is down below us.

What—can you hear those flights in the park or—— Mr. ALBERTI. Oh, yes. Observers have noted that. Some of the

people that the Park Service hired noted rather a high percentage

of the time that they could hear commercial aircraft, you know, 10

or 20 percent of the time.

Mr. DUNCAN. How high would those flights have to go before you

wouldn’t hear those?

Mr. ALBERTI. Well, about 180,000 feet.

[Laughter.]

No, about 40 miles. A slant range is for a MD-80, which is a very

popular Stage 3 aircraft that flies in and out Phoenix regularly.

That is the—the slant range has to be about 40 miles for that aircraft, to meet the 12 dB limit that is being proposed here.

Mr. DUNCAN. What did you mean at the start of your testimony

when you said that they are moving these regulatory guideposts

around? Are they changing the—do you feel like they have been

changing the standards——

Mr. ALBERTI. Yes.

Mr. DUNCAN. [continuing] in all of this?

Mr. ALBERTI. All of the regulations that have been made to date,

have been based on noticeability 3 dB(A) above the ambient. The

court case in 1998 that I think Ms. Lowey referred to, refers specifically to noticeability 3 dB(A) above ambient. That has been the

de facto standard in the canyon in recent years. So this is a change

from that. It is an attempt to lower that standard by 11 dB(A). I

have yet to hear any substantiation for it, except a desire to do it.

55

Mr. DUNCAN. And so—I have noticed over the years in chairing

the Aviation Subcommittee that people who live near airports develop almost super-human hearing and sometimes complain about

sounds that aren’t there.

But what we are talking about, if you had 100 people who

weren’t noise experts and who didn’t go into the park with the goal

of hearing something, as opposed to people who are going in with

machinery and trying to hear every sound that they can hear from

an aircraft, what is the difference here? I mean would the group—

if we surveyed the group of 100 people who went into the park, do

you think that they would notice these overflights?

Mr. ALBERTI. The majority would not, and, in fact, the majority

do not. I think 66 percent of the people who were actually asked

that question said they didn’t recall noticing aircraft.

As to the sound level, we looked at NPS data. We took the quietest 25 percent of the cases where aircraft were actually detected

and determined that the ambient, at that time, was about 26

dB(A)—it was a rather conservative approach we took; 3 dB(A)

above that is 29 dB(A). We proposed that as a standard for natural

quiet in the park. The notice proposes 8 dB(A) above ambient, and

now there is some additional information been presented which

suggests that that ambient should be 20 dB(A) over about twothirds of the park. So we get down to 12 dB(A), down where most

people can’t even hear it.

I think it is interesting that the database from which that 20

dB(A) came from—there were 23 different sites where observers

went down and measured the sound. The average value of the ambient sound at those 23 sites was 34 dB(A). But somehow, by a selection process that I don’t pretend to understand, we come up with

an average of 20 dB(A).

And I have seen this over and over in Grand Canyon National

Park, where there is a careful picking of which ambient sound

measurements are going to be used. We saw measurements taken

in the spring thrown out because the wind blows too much in the

spring, and so we have only used fall measurements. Over and

over, we see the ambient being ‘‘cherry-picked’’ down to very, very

low levels. And then we turn around and use a standard of 8 dB

below that which only a person who is straining to hear aircraft

would respond to, and you get down to really absurd sound levels.

And then on top of that, we look at the INM model, which is not

the INM model that is used at the 400 airports, under FAA regulation under parts 150 and 161, but a modified version of it that produces higher noise levels because they took out the lateral attenuation and because there are corrections made for—speed corrections for helicopters that add noise instead of subtract it, as the

helicopter noise model indicates—you know, all the things that we

discussed last fall.

You would now have an overstatement of the noise, and understatement of the ambient, and then a standard that goes 8 dB

below that. And, bit by bit, you have produced an absurd result—

a standard that no one can reasonably meet, and, in fact, even airliners 40 miles away can’t meet.

56

Mr. DUNCAN. I have gone over my time, but, Mr. Stephen, let me

ask you this; what effect, if they go to this 8 decibels below ambient, what effect would that have on your business?

Mr STEPHEN. In and of itself, that standard is a standard; it is

picked, whether it is right, wrong, or something different. It is

what regulations emanate from that, and as the last couple of

years, on the east-end of the canyon where Grand Canyon Airlines

flies, we have now curfews that aren’t related to true daylight. I

mean it is not even time to change the curfew hours to the—it is

on a date certain as opposed to daylight savings change. We are

looking at a cap on operations. We are looking at modified routes

which would add costs because it would make us go outside the

park, a longer tour route, bringing us over a higher terrain more

subject to weather. So, at what point does this stop?

And what is very interesting here is that these are only interim

measures that I just talked about. There is still out there both the

comprehensive noise management model.

And I don’t know at what point these restrictions just really detract from the ability to provide a good tour and be a profitable

business. But, obviously, a threshold of audibility minus 8 dB is a

very tough standard, and it could be used to justify any restriction

that the Park Service believes is necessary.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right; thank you.

Mr. Gibbons, you had an additional question or two.

Mr. GIBBONS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think a great deal has been

said to sort of disprove a lot of the intent here.

But I want to ask Ms. Lowey how they came to change from 34

dB(A) down to 20 dB(A)?

Ms. LOWEY. Let me first say that the folks that work for me have

reviewed Mr. Alberti’s report and think that there is a misinterpretation of our data, and I can ask them to speak directly to that

question.

Let me ask Wes Henry to discuss that question.

Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, I am not an acoustician; I wouldn’t

pretend to be.

Mr. GIBBONS. Would you identify yourself, for the record, and

your academic background?

Mr. HENRY. I am Wes Henry; I am with the National Park Service. My doctorate is in natural resources. I am a research administrator for the Park Service.

We have under contract probably some of the top acoustics firms

in the country, and they happen to disagree with Mr. Alberti. I

asked them to review the report, and they did with what they had

with the information they had. And they suggested that there may

be a number of reasons why Mr. Alberti is getting different results.

The first is the possible misinterpretation of the original BBN report that they reviewed. And they said—even HMMR contractors

said it was very difficult to work their way through the original

BBN report. It was misleading. The data in there is actually aircraft plus ambient, not just aircraft noise, and that leads you to the

wrong conclusions about the ambient levels. And they suggested

that this might be the reason for this misinterpretation. There is

not—you know, it is just a simple misinterpretation, that if Alberti

had talked to BBN, they might have straightened that one out.

57

We also found out that at that time, BBN was not using the lownoise microphones that are being used now. In other words, maybe

BBN was measuring the floor of the instrumentation of those

standard microphones. They weren’t measuring the accurate numbers to start with.

The Alberti—the JR Engineering reports models differently than

the FAA. They only looked at part of the canyon. They excluded all

the Las Vegas to Tucson traffic, which is the noisiest part of all the

routes in the park. They left their ground attenuation feature on,

and I can’t pretend to get in between Mr. Alberti and the FAA, but

the FAA authorities have assured us that by switching off that attenuation feature, they were getting their results much more

aligned to the actual ground data. That is what I—that is in my

report.

And the last thing is, if you spread the impact of a 12-hour—all

the impact you get on a 12-hour day, which is when the aircraft

are flying, and you spread that over a 24-hour time period, it looks

like a lot less impact.

So when you start to combine all those features together, you

could easily come out with some very different answers.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Alberti, your integrity has just been put into

question.

Do you want to respond to that?

Mr. ALBERTI. Sure.

Okay, there is quite a few different items. The attenuation—the

lateral attenuation—actually there is a very good reason we didn’t

turn it off, because in the version of the INM that is available to

the public that is used in every airport noise survey in the country,

you cannot turn it off. This was—the FAA went in and modified

the code—they happen to own the code—and changed the program

in a way that no one else can. Now why, only in the Grand Canyon,

is lateral attenuation not applicable, again, I will leave it to the

FAA to explain. We used the program in the manner in which it

is normally used, under FAA direction, and, in fact, the only way

you can.

As for the 12-hour versus 24-hour day, well, I guess I thought a

day was 24 hours, but I won’t quibble about that. The sound levels—we did, in fact, consider the fact that the measurements in the

BBN report did include both the aircraft and the ambient. And, in

fact, the actual observations of sound occurred at an average of 30

dB(A). We have inferred from that, given that the BBN reported

a 1 dB signal-to-noise ratio, at detection, that the ambient was,

therefore, 1 dB less or about 29 dB(A). We took the quietest 25 percent of those cases, being actually more conservative than the Park

Service in that regard, and came up with a ambient of 26 dB(A);

3 dB(A) above that is 29, and that is where we got that standard,

so we certainly did account for that.

And I can’t remember if there were any other issues.

Mr. GIBBONS. Just one question, Mr. Chairman, if I may? I know

my time is short here.

Mr. Traynham, is there any airport in the United States that can

meet this sort of a standard with a 8 dB(A) below ambient without

the airport being there to begin with?

58

Mr. TRAYNHAM. The short answer would be ‘‘No.’’ I think we need

to keep in mind what we are using this model for. It is to construct

routes and maps. It is not to be used to assess an individual aircraft or flight operation.

Mr. GIBBONS. Well, has the FAA ever found that noise has an effect on animals?

Mr. TRAYNHAM. Noise studies show that there are impacts on humans and animals by aircraft noise.

Mr. GIBBONS. Well then, in every reserve, every wildlife reserve,

we should be establishing refuge in wildlife refuge, we should be

establishing a 12 dB(A) of noise level, which will go to my colleague

over here at the Minneapolis-St. Paul problem, and we can surely

work out the airport problems there over a wildlife refuge, with a

minus 8 dB(A). I think if we set that standard, your proposal would

be certainly allowable.

But thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman—— Mr. HANSEN. [presiding] The gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think that, obviously, if you are talking about

an airport, it is a different ambient level than it might over the

Grand Canyon.

Mr. GIBBONS. Well, if the gentleman will yield, we are talking

about a wildlife preserve—— Mr. VENTO. Right.

Mr. GIBBONS. [continuing] versus a park. I mean they both have

animals; they are both there for the enjoyment of the people.

Mr. VENTO. Yes.

Mr. GIBBONS. And we are setting standards for one that we

wouldn’t set for the other, and I am not sure where you would balance the two.

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think that, obviously, on that, on the issue

with regards to Minnesota, the issue there, of course, was not affecting—it wasn’t based on the fauna or flora; it was based on the

interpretative and educational activities that went on and, of

course, the airport was there. And so the ambient level, in terms

of noise, would be, I think at an airport site, would be higher as

opposed to these flights.

But I think the question I just want to direct to Mr. Traynham

is with regards to lateral attenuation and the concern about that—

why that was deleted from this model, which is apparently a criticism of your IFN model?

Mr. TRAYNHAM. I will need to call my noise expert to the witness

table to respond to that directly.

Mr. VENTO. Well, we are interested and all; that is why we are

doing this thing.

Mr. TRAYNHAM. Tom Connor is with the Office of Energy and Environment at the FAA.

Mr. CONNOR. The lateral attenuation is used in a model to assess

the excess ground attenuation between the source and the observer

on the ground. So between them, you have sound propagating, then

you are assuming a ground surface that will refract, reflect, and

absorb the sound.

In the Grand Canyon we saw, well, that was not appropriate, because what we are dealing with is a big hole in the ground. There

59

is hardly any ground between where the aircraft is and where the

observer is. So, we said, ‘‘Okay, for the Grand Canyon, it is appropriate to turn it off.’’ And it is an effect that is really for low angles

of elevations between the observer and the aircraft.

Mr. VENTO. So my question is, of course, and I guess the question of our colleagues, is what effect does that have on the model

in terms of—in other words, this makes it more accurate? In other

words, isn’t that right, because it isn’t a flat—— Mr. CONNOR. That was the intent.

Mr. VENTO. It isn’t a flat area; it is a very unusual geophysical

feature, I guess, in the Earth’s crust. So, the issue is that this actually—it isn’t appropriate if you brought that in; it would be a less

accurate measurement.

Mr. CONNOR. That is right, because there isn’t any ground, there

can’t be any excess ground attenuation.

Mr. VENTO. And so this makes it more accurate. If you actually

treat it as though it were flat, then—— Mr. CONNOR. Right.

Mr. VENTO. [continuing] the standards would be tougher,

wouldn’t they?

Mr. CONNOR. That is right. That is what we saw.

Mr. VENTO. That is what you felt?

Mr. CONNOR. Yes.

Mr. VENTO. So, you were going for accuracy here and, obviously,

recognizing this as a, you know, sort of a pragmatic decision. You

don’t have other circumstances like that that the FAA uses. It is

generally apparently for airports; is that right?—which are, last

time I looked are pretty flat.

Mr. CONNOR. That is right; yes.

Mr. VENTO. Thank you.

Mr. VENTO. I guess Mr. Alberti has a comment on that.

Mr. Alberti?

Mr. ALBERTI. Right. I believe the INM, in its normal mode, adjusts the lateral attenuation based on the elevation angle of the

sound, so that if you were propagating sound into a hole, in fact,

it would give you zero lateral attenuation. In other words, the accuracy mentioned is, in fact, built into the program. By turning it off,

what you did was take away the program’s ability to deal with situations, for example, the south and north rim where you are propagating much more horizontally, or propagation at long distances

which you certainly get within the canyon, where the angle of the

sound to the ground is smaller. So the effect of turning it off was

not to increase the accuracy, it was to increase the noise levels.

Mr. VENTO. That is the effect, but that is what we are trying to

measure the noise level within the hole. I mean, obviously, if you

are just concerned about what the noise level would be at the rim

level, that would obviously be—and you assume that there was no

lateral attenuation—I mean you obviously would not be measuring,

then, what is happening on the surface.

Mr. ALBERTI. The INM—if you have an aircraft at some, let’s say,

8,000 feet over the canyon; you have got the rim at, let’s say, 6,000

feet. That would be a small propagation angle. There should be— there would be and should be attenuation produced by that INM.

If you are measuring sound directly under that aircraft, 5,000 feet

60

further down, the INM would not attach any lateral attenuation to

that sound propagation in its normal mode. So this correction was

unnecessary, and, in fact, it had the effect of taking away one of

the features that the INM is supposed to have.

Mr. VENTO. Well I could understand where you would need it between the distance between the rim and the aircraft that you

would need attenuation, but I understand below that, it has different—it behaves differently than it would if it were flat.

But you say it already adjusts for that?

Mr. ALBERTI. That is correct.

Mr. VENTO. And they are saying that it was inappropriate.

Mr. ALBERTI. Right.

Mr. VENTO. So——

Mr. ALBERTI. And it argues—we did, in fact, have the actual——

Mr. VENTO. This Committee is very interested in this. I hope we

can get all this information, Mr. Chairman.

[Laughter.]

Mr. HANSEN. [presiding] Well, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota.

The gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. DUNCAN. Just one more thing; Ms. Lowey, I notice in your

statement that you say the National Park Service and the FAA are

continuing to work as partners on a rulemaking process to achieve

the goal of substantial restoration of natural quiet which has been

defined by the NPS as 50 percent of the park being quiet 75 percent of the day. And you say this definition was included by the

FAA in the rules promulgated in 1996 over the Overflights Act. In

response to suits and so forth, the United States Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia in 1998 upheld this definition of substantial restoration of natural quiet.

You refer favorably to that decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals

in November of 1998. Have you read that decision?

Ms. LOWEY. Yes, I have.

Mr. DUNCAN. So you know, then, that several times in that decision, the Court of Appeals describes as a reasonable definition of

natural quiet, a level of ambient plus 3 decibels?

Ms. LOWEY. Yes.

Mr. DUNCAN. You do know that?

Ms. LOWEY. Yes. Yes; I would be happy to clarify that.

Mr. DUNCAN. Yes, several times they refer to that as being a reasonable level of natural quiet. Yet, you are wanting to refer favorably to that decision in some parts, but then go to a standard that

is much, much lower than that—much, much lower than what they

describe as a reasonable level of natural quiet.

Ms. LOWEY. I have a couple of different things I would like to

touch on.

First, sir, our report to Congress in 1994 talked about the substantial restoration of natural quiet in terms of no aircraft audible.

The National Park Service has been quite consistent in terms of

talking about no aircraft audible as being a definition. And, in fact,

as you will see also in the court decision, they talk about attentive

listeners. They don’t talk about noticeability; they talk about attentive listeners.

61

The challenge has been in the movement between the NODS

model, which is a multi-frequency model and the FAA model, which

is A-weighted—and I am not a scientist, so I will give you the best

layman’s definition of thatI can—the A-weighted measurement is

an averaging of sound it is not a representation of all of the different frequencies that comprise sound. We continue to move forward and improve our ability to most accurately assess audibility

in our models. The National Park Service has been quite consistent

in that.

And so we think that where we are right now is quite consistent

with the court decision, in light of the fact that we continue to have

better refinements to our ability to define and to express audibility.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, let me say this; you know, I am, personally,

am one who would like to make our entire society as quiet as possible, and I have been, over the last two or three years, one who

has been trying to encourage the air tour industry to move in the

direction of more quiet. And, yet, when I see that United States

Court of Appeals has ruled that a level ambient plus 3 is a very

reasonable definition of ‘‘natural quiet,’’ and yet I hear the Park

Service trying to get to a level of ambient minus 8—and I am not

a scientist either—but it seems to me, I said earlier, that in all

these issues, I will tell you, I have a wonderful relationship with

the other side of the aisle in this Congress, almost everyone. And

I have always tried, in every issue, to try to compromise and reach

some middle ground level, just because it is my personality; I just

don’t like conflict and argument. But it seems to me that when you

are—I mentioned earlier, that you just can’t please the extremists

on the ends of any issue, either the extremists on the far right or

the extremists on the far left.

And it seems to me that on this particular issue, the National

Park Service has been taken over by extremists on this issue, because this—you are going to a range that Mr. Alberti said is below

the range of ordinary human hearing. I mean it seems pretty obvious to me that anybody who wants to go to this standard is just

wanting to ban all the planes flying over, regardless of what they

might say. They can deny it to high heaven, but they are just wanting to ban all the flights over the parks.

So what they should say is, ‘‘This is what we want to do. We

want to ban all the flights over the parks.’’ Because, obviously, you

are reaching to a standard that I don’t believe can be achieved.

Anyway, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.

The gentleman from Nevada, do you have further questions for

this panel?

I apologize to the panel and folks here, but I had no choice, and

I am sure I missed a lot of good stuff that I would have liked to

have heard in this thing.

Let me ask Jackie Lowey a couple of questions if I may—and

probably it has already been covered. And you have, of course, Mr.

Superintendent sitting behind you if you need further help on this

thing.

Do you have any restrictions in that park on motorcycles?

Ms. LOWEY. I believe so.

Rob, do you want to talk about the different restrictions?

62

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Superintendent, if you would like to come up

and identify yourself for the record.

Mr. ARNBERGER. I am Robert Arnberger, superintendent of

Grand Canyon National Park. I am pleased to be here and share

the seat here.

[Laughter.]

Motorcycles are allowed in developed areas, just as are buses and

cars and so forth, and there are no restrictions on motorcycles in

those developed areas any more than there are restrictions on cars

or buses.

Mr. HANSEN. Do you have any restriction on any cars, regarding

the amount of decibels that you would hear on a car going through?

Mr. ARNBERGER. Those cars only operate in those developed

areas, and there are no restrictions.

Mr. HANSEN. What about a teenager playing his radio so loud

that everybody within 500 yards can hear it?

Mr. ARNBERGER. There is no regulation; however, a lot of times

peer pressure on those overlooks when that happens, gets the radio

turned off.

Mr. HANSEN. What are your restrictions on camping in certain

areas?

Mr. ARNBERGER. Well——

Mr. HANSEN. North rim, you have camping in——

Mr. ARNBERGER. [continuing] we have regulations on different

use areas and so forth.

I would also point to you to the fact that, under the code of Federal regulations, there are regulations, for instance, on some noise

limits. In the campground, for instance, there is a quiet hours limitation. At 10 o’clock at night in the campground, generators can’t

be turned on either. And so the code of Federal regulations does

have some limitations as well on some of these noise levels, but

they are specific applications within specific areas.

Mr. HANSEN. What about people that are hiking, say, down to

Phantom Ranch and up one of the trails or the other. Do you have

a restriction on the size of groups?

Mr. ARNBERGER. We have a restriction on the number of people

that can camp overnight. For the day-use hikers, there are no restrictions for those hikers. But for——

Mr. HANSEN. But if a 100 Boy Scouts wanted to go down to the

Coconino, the Phantom Ranch, and up Bright Angel to the Kaibab,

could they do it in one day? I mean I have done it in one day. I

mean you would have no restrictions on that?

Mr. ARNBERGER. We don’t have any restrictions; however, we go

out of our way, especially with groups such as that, to advise them

that is not wise business. As witness to the fact, we have had several Boy Scout deaths over the last couple of years due to poor trip

planning such as that.

Mr. HANSEN. What about the concessionaires who have mules

and horses or that type of thing? Any restrictions on those folks?

Mr. ARNBERGER. Yes, sir; there are. There is a number of mules

per trip is limited. The size of the person riding the mule is limited. And the total number of overnighters that can spend the night

down in Phantom on those mule trips is limited as well.

63

Mr. HANSEN. Are there any plans like we have at Zion to, say,

from Jacob Lake, to run a type of bus or trolley or something in

there and prohibit cars?

Mr. ARNBERGER. Yes; the Grand Canyon is involved in an effort

of mass and public transportation into the park, wishing to limit

the number of vehicles into that park.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Stephen, I didn’t get an opportunity to hear

your testimony. You are president of the Twin Otter International

Limited?

Mr STEPHEN. That is correct.

Mr. HANSEN. And we are going back to the aircraft that we are

talking about, used to be around for years and years?

Mr STEPHEN. Yes. Twin Otter aircraft was manufactured in Canada was a very popular, regional airliner. We found it to be an

adaptable airplane for the air tour business. We put in large, panoramic windows; we have an automated narration system so that

our 90 percent of the passengers—Twin Otter was Scenic Airlines

until we sold the Scenic air tour portion of the business in 1993.

We had 15 different languages we could broadcast to individual

passengers a narration in that language of choice of 8 different languages at one time.

The Twin Otter also employed the quiet aircraft technology props

which reduced our sound footprint by I believe about 60 percent.

Mr. HANSEN. Correct me if I am wrong, but, as you pointed out,

you make a special airplane for this type of thing—bigger windows

and all that type of thing. What is the—what have you done on

acoustical things, aside—far as your sound? What improvements

have you made, or what are you doing?

Mr STEPHEN. A major improvement is the employment of a fourbladed prop which has a shorter length of prop, which means the

tip speed is much lower. And, too, as we—I am not a maintenancetype—but we adjusted and had engineered a prime blade angle

change which allows us to cruise the airplane several hundred

RPM slower than a non-modified Twin Otter. So not only is it a

quieter prop, but also we have adjusted the prime blade angle.

We have engineers that have told us we can actually reduce the

sound of the Vistaliner even more by going into automated phasing

over the props. You get sort of a slap when you do it manually. You

can get props always totally in phase; creates a little more noise.

But without adding any incentives to move forward, we already

spent a million dollars to equip our 22 Vistaliners that are in service at Grand Canyon—little more than a million dollars. We have

nothing to benefit from trying to make these investments and be

good neighbors, and we want to be good neighbors. We want to fly

where we don’t impact visitors, and we want to fly in a neighborly

way where we do impact visitors.

Mr. HANSEN. Have you worked with some of the concessionaires,

the air tour groups, as you develop these aircraft? Have they given

you suggestions on how to do it—like Sky West, people like that?

Mr STEPHEN. Sky West acquired Scenic from us in 1993; that is

who did.

We have done all this ourselves internally. The concepts that are

involved here, both from the manufacturers that are building new

equipment and the concepts that we have in the Vistaliner, could

64

be adapted to other aircraft models flying at Grand Canyon. But,

again, if we can’t get the utilization out of the airplanes, nobody

can afford to make those changes.

Mr. HANSEN. What is your opinion of the recommendations of the

National Park Service?

Mr STEPHEN. Could you be more specific, sir?

Mr. HANSEN. I mean on the amount of sound, that type of thing

that you probably heard testimony on.

Mr STEPHEN. As I said earlier, it is how this is applied in the

way of restrictions. I mean we see more and more restrictions, and

at what point do we get a diminishing return?

There is permanent bar to new entry; there is a cap on the number of airplanes that can be flown; there is soon to be a cap on the

number of operations; they are eliminating air tour routes. I suggest, as you go down this line, you have to balance, in my view— our view, the consensus of our industry—is, you know, an appropriate use of the airspace over the park for the enjoyment of nearly

800,000 people a year. And what impact would those 800,000, if a

fraction of 100,000 of them decided to get to the remote areas of

the park because they couldn’t do a air tour; they decided to somehow take advantage of back-country visitation.

To us, the issue is visitors, and when you have less than four

dozen complaints a year from aircraft noise, I think we have

achieved what the Congress intended when it passed a legislation

in 1987.

Mr. HANSEN. Always hard to find that middle ground isn’t it?

Mr. Traynham, let me ask you, we are in kind of a basic, philosophical argument. What does the Parks do, and what do you do?

I mean, in a way—this is an old pilot. I get really nervous having

somebody on the ground tell me something that is in conflict with

the FAA. I see this in the Parks. We are now seeing that on wilderness bills. We are now seeing it on areas of Forest Service.

What can you prevent somebody from doing and not doing? I am

a little concerned that the expertise of the FAA is being taken over

by people who have great expertise on the ground, but I wonder if

they have the expertise in the air. And I hope we can come to a

middle ground.

In those general terms, would you like to comment on any of

that?

Mr. TRAYNHAM. Yes, sir. As we said in our testimony, the Park

Service and the FAA have been working together as partners in

this exercise on the Grand Canyon.

The FAA works with partners with many other types of entities

on the ground as well. We have environmental responsibilities. Our

first responsibility is the safety in the airspace. So, with the Grand

Canyon, or like with any other entity, someone will make a proposal to make the flying over a particular area more environmentally sensitive. And we will look at those proposals, determine

whether they have safety factored into them, are safe, and we will

make changes in the airspace to be environmentally sensitive. We

have redrawn routes in the New York and New Jersey area for

that very reason. People have asked us to look at other changes in

the New Jersey area to route flights out over the ocean. We have

determined that sort of routing puts it in conflict with the multiple

65

airports that are in that area. So we continue to exercise our expertise on the airspace and air traffic routings, but we do work with

other agencies to be environmentally sensitive.

Mr. HANSEN. What is your opinion of the regulation that we now

have over the Grand Canyon?

Mr. TRAYNHAM. The current regulation on routings has done a

lot to restore natural quiet to the park, as the Congress has directed be done.

The Park Service has determined that more needs to be done to

restore natural quiet the definition of ‘‘natural quiet,’’ and they are

making proposals to us for routings. We are looking at them, discarding some of them, saying others would be okay.

But we are regulating the airspace in the context of proposals

being made to us for environmental reasons. We do that everyday

in hundreds of places in this country, not just the Grand Canyon.

Mr. HANSEN. Well I sure applaud you on the safety thing. I remember distinctly when a United DC-7 and a TWA Constellation

had a mid-air there. In fact, I guess they have hauled out most of

that stuff, but back when I used to go down the river, there was

this tail section of the ‘‘Coney’’ sitting at one place. In fact I have

taken a number of pictures of it.

What bothers me about the whole thing is that I am not just seeing it there, but this Committee has seen in it Forest Service and

other areas, the military test and training ranges, and you know,

somewhere we still got to exist.

Mr. TRAYNHAM. There is no question that the FAA is ever-increasingly being asked to look at air routings all over the country

for environmental sensitivity. When you fly in from the north into

National Airport here, you make about half a dozen turns on the

river before you get to the airport. That is not an FAA-designed

route, or the conceived route. We did design the route after it was

suggested we need to fly down the river for environmental reasons,

and we have designed a very safe route down the river. But years

ago, FAA, left to its own devices, would not have designed that

route like that, but we are responding to environmental sensitivities on noise.

We are about to cross a milestone at the end of this year where

the noisy Stage 2 aircraft will be totally phased out of the U.S.

fleet. We still have environmental responsibilities after that because there are still lots of airport neighbors that are very much

impacted by noise, so we will continue to work on this.

Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate the testimony of this panel. I am sorry

that I wasn’t here to hear your testimony. I will take the time to

read it, however, and we will excuse this panel, if the gentleman

from Nevada as no further questions.

And we will turn to our second panel.

Mr. Steve Bassett, president of United States Air Tour Association; Jacob Snow, assistant director, Clarke County Department of

Aviation; and Roy Resavage, president of Helicopter Association

International.

I guess you folks all know the rules. If you can limit it to five

minutes, we would appreciate it.

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

66

STATEMENT OF STEVE BASSETT, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES

AIR TOUR ASSOCIATION

Mr. BASSETT. Thank you, Chairman Hansen and members of the

Committee, for the opportunity to testify here today. I want to congratulate you for your continued leadership of this troubling issue

and for your vigilance in seeking fair and equitable treatment for

the air tour industry.

The U.S. Air Tour Association represents 55 of the largest air

tour operators and allied companies in the United States, including

a coalition of airline and associated aviation companies that provide the majority of the Grand Canyon air tour services, both out

of Las Vegas and Grand Canyon Airport in Arizona.

The Agency’s published intention to alter the definition of ‘‘natural quiet’’ with an 8 decibel below natural ambient sound noise

threshold in the vast majority of the Grand Canyon National Park,

as we have heard, is once again appear to be based on voodoo

science; ignores impact on 99 percent of the park visitors; seeks to

protect quiet for quiet’s sake; is yet another attempt to regulate

airspace; circumvents any reasonable or rational attempt to work

with the air tour industry to find an approach to this issue acceptable to all parties; appears neither consistent with Public Law 100-

91, the stated policy of senior officials of the Department of Interior, may well exceed the statutory authority granted in the 1987

Overflights Act; will set a noise standard which will, ultimately,

not only kill the Grand Canyon air tour industry, but establish a

very dangerous precedent that will impact air touring throughout

the United States.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have sat here for two hours; I guess we

have to be careful of bureaucratic double-speak, and I have suddenly found myself very confused with much of what I heard.

As for the April 23, 1999, letter to you, Chairman Hansen, from

Grand Canyon National Park Superintendent Rob Arnberger, the

Park Service would seemed to have us all believe that this new

method of evaluating noise is not nearly as dire as it appears. They

would have us believe that this two-zone concept is actually a good

thing for the air tour industry because, while it may very well

eliminate aircraft from the center of the park, it still provides an

opportunity for these air tour aircraft to fly over another area of

the Grand Canyon.

What the Park Service has failed to clarify, however, for this

Committee, is that the center of the park, approximately two-thirds

of the park area, is where the fewest ground visitors are—approximately 18,000 per year out of 5 million, one-half of 1 percent. That

is where the aircraft currently are; that is where the routing system currently has air tour aircraft; that is where they should be,

if impact on visitors is the benchmark that we are seeking to

achieve.

The Park Service then suggests, however, that we can move aircraft to this other zone, this other zone where the standard noise

threshold, or the definition of ‘‘natural quiet’’ doesn’t change. Well,

the practical result, Mr. Chairman, is that we seem to be headed

in a direction whereby we will take the aircraft out of the area of

the park where the fewest people are, and we will then modify the

routes—at least as I read Mr. Arnberger’s letter to you—we will

67

modify the routes, perhaps in such a way that we put the aircraft

over where the preponderance of the people are, along this area

around the south rim.

Now perhaps that is supposed to be good news for the air tour

industry, because we have someplace to fly, but the practical result

will be an enormous and justifiable increase in noise

complaints——

[Laughter.]

[continuing] from all of the people that are visiting the park—

well, more than 99 percent of the people visiting the park on the

ground. And, then, that just sets us up for the next survey that occurs in six months, where they ask park visitors, ‘‘Are they annoyed by aircraft sound?’’ And, of course, the response will be, ‘‘Yes,

we are.’’ And the next thing you know, there are further regulations to try and get us out of that one area.

May I continue just for a moment?

Thank you.

Deception by the Park Service is not necessarily new when it

comes to air touring. Grand Canyon air tour operators have been

told repeatedly by Park Service officials over the years that the

Agency supports air touring in the Grand Canyon and does not

seek the Grand Canyon air tour operators out of business. It is just

a very brief example of a decade of deception by the Park Service.

Following the Overflights Act in 1987, William Horn, Assistant

Secretary of the Interior, says of the Overflights Act, quote, ‘‘Congress intended to provide for the use of sightseeing aircraft. Seeing

the Grand Canyon from the air is enjoyed by many park visitors.

The recommendations allow for air tours of 30 minutes or more

that encompass spectacular portions of the Canyon.’’

A year later, SFAR 50-2 goes into effect.

We have already heard, and I won’t go through the details, of the

successes of SFAR 50-2. And at last count, I heard we had 26 complaints registered out of 5 million visitors to the Grand Canyon. So

by all standards and measurements, we achieved substantial restoration of natural quiet, based on the 1987 Overflights Act. But,

apparently, that wasn’t good enough for the Park Service, so they

continued to promulgate further regulations.

We met with Director Stanton personally, the United States Air

Tour Association Board of Directors. He assured us that it is not

their intent to put the Grand Canyon air tour operators out of business. During the 17-month negotiation of the National Park Overflight Working Group, we were told the same thing by Park Service

officials. At the USATA convention in Alaska last year, we were

told exactly the same thing by Park Service officials. Yet every action the Park Service takes is contrary to their public pronouncements to us they are looking to ensure the viability of the Grand

Canyon air tour industry.

The Park Service may already have overstepped its statutory

boundaries. At a minimum, the Agency has abused its power. It

turns a deaf-ear on the important segments of its constituency, 99

percent of ground visitors and air tour passengers. It engages in a

systematic campaign of deception with air tour operators. And the

airspace control, it cannot obtain statutorily because you won’t give

68

them—and wisely so—that statutory jurisdiction, authority, they

seek to obtain by intimidation and political pressure.

S.J.R. 21, the Nevada Legislature asked Congress to effect an

outcome for the southern Nevada air tour industry that will protect, support, and sustain the viability of this significant contributor to tourism economy in the State of Nevada and the enjoyment

of visitors and sightseers.

That is our request, as well, Mr. Chairman, for without your

intervention, the end of Grand Canyon air touring, as well as air

touring nationally is at hand.

What we would request is this; at the very minimum, because

you have requested and you have achieved sequential referral of

H.R. 1000, our request is, at a minimum, number one, that the

sound standards contained in that piece of legislation that air tour

operations in the Grand Canyon must be based on valid and reasonable scientific methodology and standards, and that such standards must allow for the continued existence of a viable air tour industry in the Grand Canyon. And, secondarily, the provision which

ensures that future air tour management plans at Lake Meade National Recreation Area, and other public lands adjacent to the

Grand Canyon, may not be used as artificial barriers to the Grand

Canyon.

These are two key provisions of H.R. 1000, and, at the very minimum, we request your support on those provisions.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bassett follows:]

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.

Mr. Snow.

STATEMENT OF JACOB SNOW, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CLARKE

COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION, McCARRAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Mr. SNOW. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee.

I am Jacob Snow; I am assistant director of aviation for the

Clark County Department of Aviation in Las Vegas, Nevada. We

own/operate McCarran International Airport, which is the tenth

biggest airport in the country.

Like the Park Service, Clarke County has hired acoustical experts to go out and to take noise monitors, similar to this one, and

to do noise studies in the Grand Canyon. And we would agree with

Ms. Lowey’s assertion that there are parts of the Grand Canyon

that do get to as low as 15 or 20 decibels, but that is only during

certain parts of the day.

The studies that we spent money to do, they weren’t cheap, but

they revealed some very important information. And that is, those

times of the day that Ms. Lowey and the Park Service are referring

to occur only, those low noise levels, occur only between the hours

of 2 a.m. and 7 a.m., when air tours are not flying. But, however,

during the daytime, when the sun comes, and the wind comes up,

and the animals are moving, the natural ambient noise in those

quietest parts of the canyon is 100 times noisier, on average, about

40 decibels, according to Brown and Buntin’s extensive noise monitoring in the canyon. That is a significant problem because the net

effect of that is that it overstates aircraft noise. For example, our

trained experts in the Grand Canyon could look up in the sky, and

they could see an air tour aircraft flying over, but they couldn’t

hear it and the noise monitor could not register the impact of it because the background ambient was so high.

So, imagine if you are the Park Service and you are saying that

the noise level in that canyon is 20 decibels or 15 decibels all day

long, and the noise level really gets down that low, or if an air tour

aircraft were flying over at night, which would never happen, then

you would notice that air tour aircraft much more.

In pointing this error out to the Park Service and the FAA, they

shrug their shoulders and they say, ‘‘We are going to go ahead and

regulate you, and we will sort it all out later.’’

Problem number two, as discussed earlier today, the Park Service and the FAA, with their integrated noise model, had no way of

differentiating between acoustical shielding or lateral attenuation

of noise. Now let me demonstrate that.

Suppose that my hand here is an air tour aircraft flying at 7,500

feet over the Grand Canyon, and we have this microphone is a canyon wall in between a group of hikers in the Grand Canyon, down

here in the canyon. Their model has no way of accounting for the

attenuation or the natural shielding of that canyon wall. However,

our noise studies show that for the specifically—the type of aircraft, the Dehaviland-6 Twin Otter, that operates extensively in

the Grand Canyon, the FAA and the Park Service are over-predicting that particular aircraft by as much as 10 decibels, because

87

they cannot account for this lateral attenuation, this natural

shielding, that takes effect in the Grand Canyon.

Now it is true that the FAA’s integrated noise model is a very

good tool to use at airports. Since I have been in my position at

Clarke County, I have seen probably 10 different versions of that

noise model come out. It is a very good tool for measuring noise at

airports when you have got about 20 miles, when you are trying

to get the noisiest areas around the airport defined, and they use

their 65 DNL metric for that. However, it is a very lousy tool if you

are trying to measure noise impacts over hundreds of miles—the

Grand Canyon being hundreds of miles long—and a big hole in the

ground with all sorts of natural terrain variations and vegetation

barriers. It is a terrible tool, especially when you are trying to

measure noise that is at such a low level.

The FAA, themselves, will tell you that when it goes—the lower

you go in trying to measure noise levels with their integrated noise

model, the less accurate it becomes.

Third, an area of concern with the noise methodology is, Mr.

Chairman, as you know, flying aircraft for so long, that when a

new aircraft goes into service, it has to be certificated by the FAA.

And part of that certification process is extensive noise tests on

how noisy it is on takeoff. They do max-EPR, max power, on takeoff. They see how noisy it is on takeoff. And what they have done,

rather than go into the canyon and to measure how noisy these air

tour aircraft really are, they just take that number from their certification data that is in their database, and they plug it in to their

noise model, assuming max power over the Grand Canyon. Now

these air tour aircraft are not a commercial flight that is trying to

go from point-A to point-B in the quickest way possible at the fastest speed. They are flying back and forth trying to provide an air

tour; they are trying to fly slower so that people can see, rather

than pass everything by. They are not flying at max power; they

are not flying at max speed. And once again, the Park Service and

FAA have overestimated the true impact from air tours.

Those are my three primary concerns, Mr. Chairman. I would

like to point out that I would recommend that this Subcommittee

should insist that the agencies desist from their rulemaking and

the use of the NPS methodology until they have developed an adequate scientific basis for rulemaking. If not, then we are just going

to be back before this Subcommittee, talking about the cart being

put before the horse, and we will be still dealing with these extreme positions.

And if you would allow me, Mr. Chairman, I have a brief presentation that I would like to make to show how extreme I think that

this new proposed methodology is, and I would like to use this

noise monitor to do that, with your permission, sir.

Mr. HANSEN. Sure; go ahead.

Mr. SNOW. If I could, I would just like to take this precision

sound level meter which measures—this will give you decibel readout in A-weighted decibels, which is designed to correspond to the

frequency that the human ear hears. I would like to bring this up

to the dais and have you hold it, and take some noise measurements, similar to what Mr. Gibbons was referring to earlier, if you

wouldn’t mind.

88

Mr. HANSEN. Come on up.

Mr STEPHEN. If you wouldn’t mind noting, Mr. Chairman, the

Park Service, as we have talked about today, has divided the National Park, the Grand Canyon, into two different noise zones. And

they originally started with this definition of ‘‘natural quiet’’ at

what we call ‘‘ambient plus 3’’ or ‘‘20 decibels plus three.’’ And they

notice that in the more developed parts of the park and in the

areas down by the river where there was water, it was just too

noisy in those areas to even—ever attain that restoration of natural quiet in the Grand Canyon. So, irrespective of air tours, they

couldn’t do it in that zone.

And so, therefore, they have created this more restrictive Zone

Two, very restrictive noise levels. In fact, they have got the ambient in some places measured as low as 15, so if you take 8 away

from that, you are down to 7.

So, what I am going to do, if you have noticed while I am talking,

I don’t know what the noise level reads, but would you mind just

giving the audience a general feel for what the average has been

on that read-out there?

Mr. HANSEN. Well, I don’t know if I am an authority enough to

read this thing.

Mr. SNOW. Just read what it is saying right now.

Mr. HANSEN. Sixty-four point six.

Mr. SNOW. Okay. What I would like to do is to just take a few

seconds, and we will see how—if we could ask for quiet—see how

low we can get this room to measure.

Mr. HANSEN. All right. We will ask everyone to be very quiet.

Mr. SNOW. How low did we get?

Mr. HANSEN. You got down to 34.

Mr. SNOW. Okay. Once you get below 34 decibels, it is very difficult to measure accurately.

Mr. HANSEN. Then when you started speaking, it jumped back up

to 69.

Mr. SNOW. Yes, sir.

[Laughter.]

Let me just put this in perspective. To get down to 7 decibels

from 34, is roughly a 1,000-fold reduction in noise. And to meet

that standard, the Park Service is going to have to get the bugs

and the bunnies to get out of the park as well, because just the virtue of the fact that insects and animals living in the park, they are

never going to be able to reach that standard.

We hope to show that this is an extreme proposal, as we think

it is. The Clark County Department of Aviation, on the other hand,

when we were at a meeting in Flagstaff with most of the key stakeholders in attendance, we wanted to get to middle ground, because

we have airports in Clark County that we would like to see quieter

aircraft operating in those airports.

We think that substantial restoration of the natural quiet is a

laudable goal. We think—and we proposed it that day, with the air

tour operators’ support, that we put all of these issues on the

table—caps on operations, curfews, higher altitudes, the location of

the routes, avoiding sensitive lands—and ‘‘let’s sit down and let’s

do a negotiated rulemaking on this.’’ And the response we got back

from the FAA and the Park Service is, ‘‘We don’t have the reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:57 Feb 02, 2001 Jkt 067082 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\58698 pfrm02 PsN: 58698
89

sources or the time to deal with that.’’ The response we got back

from the environmentalists was, ‘‘Well, shoot; we think we can just

get rid of you and get all the air tours out of the Grand Canyon.

That is what our goal is anyway, and so we don’t want to participate in that. We think we, you know, we can get rid of you completely.’’ We have been trying to achieve the middle ground here, and I

would recommend to the Committee that they direct the Park Service and the FAA to—and initiate a negotiated rulemaking so that

we can reach the balance that Congress said to reach between air

tours, safety, and concern for the environment.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Snow follows:]

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Snow.

Mr. Resavage, the floor is yours—our business.

STATEMENT OF ROY RESAVAGE, PRESIDENT, HELICOPTER

ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL

Mr. RESAVAGE. Thank you, Chairman Hansen, and members of

the Subcommittee, for allowing me to respond to the changes the

National Park Service is requesting relative to air tours in the

Grand Canyon National Park.

My comments are intended to reflect the interests and concerns

of the members of the Helicopter Association International. HAI is

the trade association of the civil helicopter industries with members operating more than 4,000 helicopters and flying in excess of

2 million hours each year. HAI provides programs that enhance

safety, encourage professionalism, and promote the unique contributions of the helicopter to society.

I would like to take a moment to mention HAI’s Fly Neighborly

Program, a program that is adhered to by the air tour industry.

Through varied instructional techniques, attention is focused on

the needs of the non-participating public on the ground. Numerous

technical and common-sense approaches that can mitigate sound

propagation are stressed to the aircrews and their owners. The

aviation community understands that it must be accountable to a

larger constituency than its direct customers if it is going to maintain its economic viability.

The evolution of the regulations commented on by other witnesses is a perfect example of how the air tour has successfully

adapted their operations to blend with the reasonable expectations

of park visitors. However, the current proposal to divide the park

into two segments with dramatically stricter sound limitations does

not allow the tour industry the latitude of even extending an olive

branch in hope of reaching a fair compromise.

One of the questions before the Committee today is whether the

National Park Service has the statutory power to force its perception of what it believes to be right against the wishes of the people.

There has been no human outcry to rid the Grand Canyon of air

tours by the millions of people that enjoy its majesty every year.

Quite the contrary. You have heard testimony today that reflects

that incredible small percentage of people that feel aviation negatively impacted their experience. In 1997 and 1998, a combined

total of approximately 78 people complained, out of the 9,700,000

who visited the Grand Canyon. Most leaders charged with the governance of a diverse constituency would hardly consider those numbers a mandate for change.

It is distressing to see an agency arrogantly pursue its own misguided agenda, after being cited by this Committee just last year

for improper actions. Although this statement appears harsh, I

don’t know how else to account for the Park Service’s treatment of

the sound studies they had manipulated.

Last year, testimony was given that unequivocally rendered the

noise study assumptions of the Park Service to a status of pseudoscience. It was obvious to all in attendance that the sound models

were incorrectly altered, and industry standards were not followed,

116

and the results of their efforts were not subject to the scrutiny of

a peer review.

And I would like to emphasize that for just a minute there were

some questions earlier about the validity of Mr. Alberti’s sound

studies.

HAI became aware of the sound studies and USATA wanted us

to join in this process, we had no reason to doubt them, but we also

had no reason to be able to testify publicly in support of them without a peer review, and that is what we did. Last year, you heard

testimony from Dr. Ahuja, who was one of the country’s leading

acousticians. This was a gentleman that was given no direction— I stress again, he was given no direction by our association as to

what the outcome of his results should be. We asked him to give

us the best professional effort he could. He did, and he, in fact, concurred with the findings of the initial report.

The Park Service acknowledged there were serious shortfalls in

their analysis. Yet, in their rush to change the world, they proposed even stricter limitations on the air tour industry. This was

not because new and improved data had been analyzed that supports their previous incorrect claim, but because they feel they can

impose their extreme interpretation on others.

Anyone who has been to the Grand Canyon and participated in

either a helicopter or fixed-wing tour can tell you they do not fly

over assemblages of people. The tours rigidly follow the routes and

altitudes, as directed by SFAR 50-2, while practicing Fly Neighborly flight techniques. The aircrews do not deviate from their assigned airspace. All flights are flown above the rim of the canyon,

away from the tourists, in very narrow routes, clear of the freeflight zones that blanket the majority of the park. There is only one

spot on the extreme western edge of the visitors’ tour route along

the southern rim of the canyon that helicopters cross over. The tour

industry has asked to have this crossing point displaced several

miles to the west to totally eliminate even the minimal exposure

a ground tourist might encounter. Unfortunately, no action has

been directed at this easily correctable situation.

The acoustic experts agree that new limits imposed by the twotier system are not needed to satisfy the Park Service’s own definition of ‘‘natural quiet,’’ and their attempts to justify their position

are practically a laughing matter in the scientific community.

The 5 million people who visit the Grand Canyon each year are

not demanding increased restrictions on the air tour industry. In

fact, 800,000 visitors per year want to view the park via air touring.

The new restrictions would lower the acceptable sound levels in

many areas below the human threshold of hearing. If the air tour

industry is denied access to the areas that are not frequented by

the vast majority of the visiting public, then it would be forced to

either operate at a distance so far from the canyon as to render its

service meaningless, or to crowd into the remaining area where the

ground visitors are in mass. Does this make sense?

I would like to finish up with a quote from Mark Twain’s ‘‘Gilded

Age,’’ and it conveys our message with crystal clarity.

‘‘No country can live well-governed unless its citizens, as a body,

keep religiously before their minds that they are the guardians of

117

the law, and the law officers are only the machinery for its execution, nothing more.’’ Honored Committee members, we are the citizens to whom Mark

Twain refers and we request that you carefully consider the pending legislation that you will be acting on in the near future.

I thank the Committee for an opportunity to speak for HAI and

all its members, and also for the remainder of the air tour industry.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Resavage follows:]

STATEMENT OF ROY RESAVAGE, PRESIDENT, HELICOPTER ASSOCIATION

INTERNATIONAL

Thank you Chairman Hansen, Ranking Member Romero-Barcelo ́ and members of

the Subcommittee for affording me an opportunity to address the changes requested

by the National Park Service (NPS) relative to air-tour operations at Grand Canyon

National Park. My comments are intended to reflect the interests and concerns of

the members of the Helicopter Association International (HAI).

HAI is the trade association of the civil helicopter industry with members operating more than 4,000 helicopters and flying in excess of 2,000,000 hours each year.

HAI provides programs that enhance safety, encourage professionalism and promote

the unique contributions made by helicopters to society.

I would like to take a moment to mention HAI’s Fly Neighborly program, a program that is adhered to by the air-tour industry. Through varied instructional techniques, attention is focused on the needs of the non-participating public on the

ground. Numerous technical and common sense approaches that can mitigate sound

propagation are stressed to the aircrews. The aviation community understands that

it must be accountable to a larger constituency than its direct customers if it is

going to maintain its economic viability.

The evolution of regulations commented on by other witnesses is a perfect example of how the air-tour industry has successfully adapted their operations to blend

with the reasonable expectations of the Park visitors. However, the current proposal

to divide the park into two segments with dramatically stricter sound limitations

does not allow the tour industry the latitude of extending an olive branch in hope

of reaching a fair compromise.

One of the questions before this Committee today is whether the National Park

Service has the statutory power to force its perception of what it believes to be right

against the wishes of the public. There has been no human outcry to rid the Grand

Canyon of air tours by the millions of people that enjoy its majesty every year.

Quite the contrary. You have already heard testimony today that reflects the incredibly small percentage of people that felt that aviation negatively impacted their experience. In 1997 and 1998 a combined total of approximately 78 people (.000008

percent) complained out of the 9,700,000 who visited the Grand Canyon. Most leaders charged with the governance of a diverse constituency would hardly consider

those numbers a mandate for change.

It is distressing to see an agency arrogantly pursue its own misguided agenda,

after being cited by this Committee for improper actions. Although that statement

appears harsh, I don’t know how else to account for the Park Service’s treatment

of the sound studies they have manipulated.

Last year, testimony was given that unequivocally rendered the noise study assumptions of the Park Service to a status of pseudo-science. It was obvious to all

in attendance that sound models were incorrectly altered, industry standards were

not followed, and the results of their efforts were not subjected to the scrutiny of

a peer review. The Park Service acknowledged there were serious shortfalls in their

analysis, yet in their rush to change the world to fit their agenda, they have proposed even stricter limitations on the air-tour industry. This was not because new

and improved data have been analyzed that supports their previous incorrect claim,

but because they feel they can impose their extreme interpretation on others.

Anyone who has been to the Grand Canyon and participated in either a helicopter

or fixed wing tour can tell you that they do not fly over assemblages of people. The

tours rigidly follow the routes and altitudes as directed by SFAR 50-2, while practicing Fly Neighborly flight techniques. The aircrews do not deviate from their assigned airspace. All flights are flown above the rim of the canyon, away from the

tourists, in very narrow routes, and clear of the flight-free zones that blanket the

majority of the Park. There is only one spot on the extreme western edge of the visitor tour route along the southern rim of the canyon that the helicopters cross over.

118

The tour industry has asked to have this crossing point displaced several miles to

the west to totally eliminate even the minimal exposure a ground tourist might encounter. Unfortunately no action has been directed at this easily correctable situation.

The acoustic experts agree that the new limits imposed by the two-tier system are

not needed to satisfy the Park Service’s own definition of natural quiet, and their

attempts to justify their position are practically a laughing matter to the scientific

community. The 5,000,000 people who visit the Grand Canyon each year are not demanding increased restrictions on the air-tour industry. In fact 800,000 visitors per

year want to view the park via air touring.

The new restrictions would lower the acceptable sound levels in many areas below

the human threshold of hearing. If the air-tour industry is denied access to the

areas that are not frequented by the vast majority of the visiting public, then it

would be forced either to operate at a distance so far from the Canyon as to render

it’s service meaningless, or to crowd into the remaining area where the ground visitors are in mass. Does this make sense to anyone?

A quote from Mark Twain’s Golden Age, conveys our message with crystal clarity:

‘‘No country can live well governed unless its citizens as a body keep religiously

before their minds that they are the guardians of the laws and that the law officers are only the machinery for its execution, nothing more.’’ Mr. Chairman and honored Committee members, we are the citizens to whom

Mark Twain refers. The National Park Service is the machinery for executing the

law. Therefore, we the citizens, ask that you enact a law that will get the machinery

back on line, and preserve the right of our citizens to responsibly enjoy the Grand

Canyon as they do today.

I thank the Committee and its leaders for this opportunity to be heard and look

forward to answering your questions.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.

Mr. Gibbons.

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

Mr. Bassett, you have been involved with the ARAC Working

Group; have you not, for some time?

Mr. BASSETT. The Overflights Working Group?

Mr. GIBBONS. Yes.

Mr. BASSETT. The National—yes. I am not a member of the

working group, but, yes, involved.

Mr. GIBBONS. You have been involved.

To your best understanding and recollection, did the Park Service ever bring to the working group, to their attention, that they

were working on changing the methodology or standards for determining this ambient noise standard?

Mr. BASSETT. Not once. Had they done that, that would probably

have been a series of very short, brief meetings, and it would have

been over.

Mr. GIBBONS. Well do you believe, then, that the Park Service

was acting in good faith during all these negotiations over the past

years?

Mr. BASSETT. Absolutely not. In fact, Congressman, I don’t believe the Park Service has worked in good faith on any of these

issues, with respect to air touring, particularly in the Grand Canyon.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Snow, let me ask you a quick question about

liability. Could you address any of the liability concerns that would

be caused by implementing this new standard?

Mr. SNOW. I think for the agencies to go forward at this point

in time, when there is enough evidence on the record about the invalidity of the noise methodology, for them to proceed forward with

regulating the industry at this time, opens the Federal Government

up to a significant amount of liability. And they certainly would be

119

subject to challenge, and the precedent is established that they

would not be able to—under scrutiny, it wouldn’t hold up in a court

of law.

Mr. GIBBONS. So, in essence, what you are saying is, when there

is a contract, say, between an aircraft manufacturer and an air

tour operator who had ordered aircraft to be made and purchased

under certain standard ambient conditions of noise production of

the aircraft, if the government comes in, then, and changes those

standards that can’t be met by the aircraft, someone is going to

lose in that contract, whether it is the air tour operator or the

manufacturer, under that contract. Then would the government,

then, be liable for changing the standards at that point in time?

Mr. SNOW. I am not an attorney—I play one on TV on occasion—

but I would say ‘‘yes’’ to that question—and I am kidding about

being on TV.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Resavage, do you use noise abatement procedures for helicopter operations?

Mr. RESAVAGE. Yes, sir; we certainly do. There are many things

that the aviation industry, as a whole—and the helicopter industry,

in particular—can do, in addition to quiet technology.

Before I get off on those, though, I would like to say that one of

our board members is a principal operator of helicopters in the

Grand Canyon, and he is developing, at his own expense, ultraquiet technology for helicopter tours, which will significantly reduce

their levels.

But there are other things that you can do that are common

sense that, again, don’t fall in the realm of rocket science. If you

climb quickly so that you don’t constantly fly at low altitude over

people, you can do that. If you adjust your air speeds, you can control your sound propagation. Adjusting your rotor RPM will also

have an effect on sound. The rate that you descend, and also the

airspeed that you descend at, can mitigate the sounds of what we

call ‘‘blade slap.’’ All of these things can be done—making smooth

maneuvers instead of radical maneuvers can greatly reduce the

noise that is generated by the aircraft. These things are all practiced, not only by the helicopter community, but also the fixed-wing

community that operate in the tour, sir.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Resavage, you have indicated in your testimony that you have approached the Park Service in order to modify routes to make them less intrusive to ground park visitors.

Can you explain whether the Park Service has responded to your

requests or not?

Mr. RESAVAGE. I have not personally asked them, but many of

the operators behind me can, and I am sure they could probably

give you dates and times that they have done that. They have repeatedly asked to have the final route where they come back over

the canyon, prior to going to the airport, they have to cross the rim

at some point. The point that they have I believe is called ‘‘Hermit’s Lookout,’’ or something similar to that, and it is at the extreme western end of where their little bus tour is. If they were to

displace that two or three miles to the west, the people in that

point, at the western-most point, would not even hear them. To my

120

knowledge, sir, there has been no feedback to the tour industry

that would accommodate that request.

Mr. GIBBONS. So the Park Service has, in their action, refused to

change the route, as requested by the helicopter operators to make

it quieter, from the impact of the helicopter. This is what you are

saying?

Mr. RESAVAGE. Yes, sir; that is my knowledge of the situation.

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

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Gibbons.

Mr. Snow, you said on the north rim, with this—let’s say around

noon, say, there at the lodge, you know, where that big circle is and

the whole bit, and there is cars and there is motorcycles and there

is people and all that stuff.

What do you think this would register?

Mr. SNOW. I think it would register very similar to the noise levels we registered in this room.

Mr. HANSEN. Between 60 to 70—— Mr. SNOW. Probably 70—— Mr. HANSEN. [continuing] somewhere in there?

Mr. SNOW. I would say between 60 and 80 decibels.

Mr. HANSEN. Now, let’s put Mr. Stephen’s Twin Otter flying over,

7,500 feet above. What does it go up to?

Mr. SNOW. It is probably going to up to about 40, 45.

Mr. HANSEN. Let’s put a group of Hell’s Angels going through on

Harleys.

[Laughter.]

What does it go up to?

Mr. SNOW. Hell’s Angels going through on a Harley. I would say

that that is probably going to exceed the 94 decibel limit at the top

of that noise-level meter.

Mr. HANSEN. Now, let’s fly you down in the canyon—I guess we

would have to have an emergency to get you there, but we did put

that in the bill, because I did that myself—and put you near Lava

Falls or Crystal. Now what is it?

Mr. SNOW. Near one of the falls down there?

Mr. HANSEN. I think Crystal and Lava Falls are the two I fear

the most when I go through there. And they are noisy rascals.

What—— Mr. SNOW. We are near the falls—— Mr. HANSEN. [continuing] are they going to up to?

Mr. SNOW. [continuing] I think we are probably going to be off

the scale for that. We will be above 94 decibels if we are real close

to the falls.

Mr. HANSEN. Let’s take an F-15 out of Nellis and fly it right up

there. Now what are you going to?

Mr. SNOW. Afterburner Estates——

[Laughter.]

We are off the scale, again.

Mr. HANSEN. I see.

Mr. SNOW. I think the loudest one we get is the—— Mr. HANSEN. Okay, let’s take a Cessna 210, and fly it over there

above. What is it going to go up to?

Mr. SNOW. Cessna 210 would probably be in the 50——

Mr. HANSEN. It would?

121

Mr. SNOW. Yes.

Mr. HANSEN. Now move out to Point Royal out there. Is that

what you called that, Mr. Arnberger, out there when we—Point

Royal. A little quieter there. What would this thing be?

Mr. SNOW. It depends on what time of day. If it was doing the

daytime, it would probably be somewhere between 30 and 40 decibels.

Mr. HANSEN. Okay, let’s make it 2 in the morning. What is it?

Mr. SNOW. Probably between 20 and 25 decibels at Point Royal;

maybe a little bit lower.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Bassett, do you think with all that, that the

aircraft are getting picked on?

[Laughter.]

Mr. BASSETT. Thank you for the softball, Mr. Chairman.

Absolutely we do, and the concern that we have, in that regard,

is a comment that was made by the administration and that was

‘‘This change in the definition of ‘natural quiet’ does not, in itself,

exclude aircraft.’’ Well, of course it does.

Mr. HANSEN. A lot of people are of the opinion—and I don’t buy

the conspiracy theories—but a lot of people are of the opinion that

the administration on wilderness, national parks—well, not national parks, but monuments, areas like that—that they definitely

are death on mining. Also, they are death on aircraft. Do you subscribe to that?

Mr. BASSETT. Absolutely. And what we have found over the—you

know, we are an easy target. We are visible; we are there. We advertise; people who go into Las Vegas or into Utah or Arizona, I

mean they see the ads. I mean this is a visible industry, although

it is a very small industry, so it becomes a very easy target. And,

also, because we are small, from a political perspective, you know,

we are not a multibillion dollar lobby, I mean, and so we, at that

point, become a very easy target—probably the first of many, but

very easy, nonetheless.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Resavage, we have talked a lot about technology, and I think the gentleman from Nevada has alluded to

some of these things, but how do you hear a Huey or a Blackhawk

or a Cobra or even some new—they are pretty noisy rascals. I

mean you hear ‘‘whoop, whoop, whoop’’ in those babies, and stuff

like that. Now, I get into the Ranger-3 and some of those are a lot

quieter. What technology are they doing on helicopters?

Mr. RESAVAGE. They are doing a lot to decrease the sound of the

aircraft—or the noise that is emitted from helicopters, sir.

They are working on rotor technology. They are trying to slow

down the blade-tip speed which would decrease the sound. They

are altering the way the tail rotor guidance is given; they are going

to fenestrons and no-tail rotor, arrangements which greatly reduce

the noise. So those things are being contemplated.

They are even working on baffling and acoustic techniques for

the engines, even though the engines are a lower noise emitter

than the main transmission and rotor and tail rotor system. So

they are working on all of those.

Also, some of the aircraft that you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, are

very old vintage military aircraft that were not designed to be unVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:57 Feb 02, 2001 Jkt 067082 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\58698 pfrm02 PsN: 58698
122

obtrusive, I guess if you will. They are designed for maximum performance of their mission, and stealth was not part of that mission.

So those technologies—there are a lot of aircraft that are still out

there that are noisier than the new-generation aircraft, but those

manufacturing techniques are no longer being followed, and those

are not the type of aircraft that are being flown in the Grand Canyon National Park today.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Nevada.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly hope that if these types of regulations may never get

approved. But anytime regulations like this come to being, I would

only hope that the Park Service limits its own aircraft, helicopter

activities, to the same noise levels that these gentlemen and the air

tour industry have been attempting to do, also. Because I think

they may be contributing to their own noisy parks, as well.

But my question would be, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Bassett, maybe.

Of all the people that travel with your service over the Grand Canyon, and many of them are either old, infirm, disabled, or very

young and have no other means by which to see the Grand Canyon—it is a two-part question. One, does this regulation, or would

this regulation, by excluding your service, deny them access to the

park?

And, secondly, what would we do to ensure that they had the access to a park, to see the grandeur of the Grand Canyon, without

your service available to them?

Mr. BASSETT. Congressman, part one, the number is about 62

percent. Those who take air tours of the Grand Canyon, who are

either under 15 years old, elderly—over 50, have some kind of

health-related problem, or, indeed, are disabled. That number is

somewhere in the neighborhood of 62 percent, total.

And the answer to question two, would they have access to the

park? Well, I guess they would. I guess there is a way for them to

access the park, but there is certainly not a way for them, given

that, to see the park. I guess the Park Service could argue that

there are alternatives for them. For example, they can ride into it

and stand and look. If they are disabled, they may have a difficult

time getting in or out of vehicles and—so it would be difficult to

sit here and say, ‘‘Well, they don’t have an alternative,’’ because I

am sure the Park Service would argue that they do. But, would it

be an alternative that would give them any type of reasonable view

of the Grand Canyon, such as they are able to get by air tour? Absolutely not.

And, if this modification of the definition of ‘‘natural quiet’’ is

permitted to be implemented, as the January notice suggested,

then we are only a short step or two away from an NPRM and a

regulatory action that, then, says, ‘‘Well, because of this, you can

no longer fly aircraft in this area.’’

The change in definition doesn’t, in itself, eliminate aircraft. The

frightening part is the regulation that comes after that will eliminate the aircraft.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Nevada has brought up a very

interesting point, though. You know we get all kinds of letters from

people; we average maybe 100 letters a day in all our offices. And

people from BART—you know that retired group? They write on a

123

regular basis. I look at my own in-laws, my father-in-law and

mother-in-law in their late-80’s, who had never seen the Grand

Canyon or Glen Canyon Recreation Area. And they flew over it;

they raved about it for a long time, what a beautiful experience it

was.

Now, those of us in Congress, we got to say—well, look; it is a

big country out there, and more than just the person who is young

and athletic and well-heeled deserves to enjoy some of our parks.

And I think the aircrafts has been the answer for a lot of those.

Maybe at an inconvenience to somebody else, but at some time I

am inconvenienced every day of my life, as you are, too.

And so, somewhere, there is some moderation in this thing, and

I would hope, working with the Park Service, we could come to

something we could all agree on with this administration.

I thank this committee—or the panel for being with us.

Superintendent Arnberger, did you—you didn’t get a chance to

talk. Do you want to come on up and say a word or two, or would

you rather not?

You are welcome to, and I would invite you to come up if you are

so inclined. This is the man that has to catch the slings and the

arrows, you know. Sometimes my heart goes out to our superintendents; they get caught and be in a vise sometime. And if you

would like to say a word or two, we welcome you to take the mike

there.

Mr. ARNBERGER. Well, you are very kind, and I won’t take the

mike for very long. I will be seeing you later, I think, to discuss

other issues.

But I just want to assure this panel—and it is, obviously, that

there is a creditability gap here, but this National Park Service

and the Grand Canyon National Park is trying to find a balance.

In fact, every year in Tusayan, we have a big July 4 event, and our

community does. And every year, I end up buying some air tour

tickets for my family that I use for my family. My father, who is

old and infirmed, in fact, has taken that tour. We are not interested in putting the air tour business out of business. We are interesting in finding that balance, and that is the difficulty. And we

will continue to stride forward with the FAA to do that, and all the

interested to do that.

Mr. HANSEN. Well, thank you; I appreciate those remarks. Every

superintendent has his cross to bear, so to speak. Mike Finley sits

up there in Yellowstone wondering what to do with all those impassable roads. We got sewer system problems down in the Everglades. Every time my phone rings, it is another superintendent

telling me the problems he has got. So, my heart goes out to all

of them.

But let me thank you folks for the excellent testimony. It has

been very interesting, and believe me, the Committee will do a lot

in digesting this and trying to work with the Department of Interior and this administration in coming up with something that we

hope is very reasonable.

And this is quite an instrument you have here, Mr. Snow.

[Laughter.]

124

I would like to take this to the House floor on occasion.

[Laughter.]

I could make some great use of it. And with that, we will consider the meeting adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:34 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141