U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

51–282 CC WASHINGTON : 1998

THE 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 FIFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

ANALYSIS OF NATIONAL PARK SERVICE DATA

ON AIR OVERFLIGHT SOUND AT THE GRAND

CANYON NATIONAL PARK, AND THE GRAND

CANYON RIVER WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT

PLAN AND ASSOCIATED COLORADO RIVER

MANAGEMENT PLAN

SEPTEMBER 24, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 105–109

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

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

GEORGE MILLER, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

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

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

SAM FARR, California

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

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

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

RICK HILL, Montana

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

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 September 24, 1998 .......................................................................... 1

Statements of Members:

Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni, a Delegate in Congress from the State of American Samoa, prepared statement of ............................................................. 4

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

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

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

Hayworth, Hon. J. D., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 33

Shadegg, Hon. John B., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 10

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 11

Stump, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona ................................................................................................................ 3

Statements of witnesses:

Ahuja, K. K., Professor and Regents Researcher, Georgia Institute of

Technology ..................................................................................................... 16

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 127

Alberti, John R., JR Engineering .................................................................... 13

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 91

Arnberger, Robert, Superintendent, Grand Canyon National Park ............. 5

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 66

Additional testimony by Robert Arnberger ............................................. 35

Grisham, Mark, Executive Director, Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association ............................................................................................................ 38

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 141

Halvorson, Elling B., President, Papillon Airways, Inc. ............................... 7

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 67

Harrison, Robin T., P.E., Consultant .............................................................. 8

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 68

Lynch, Robert S., Chairman of the Board, Central Arizona Project Association ............................................................................................................ 36

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 74

Statements by participants of various river trips .................................. 78

Merrill, Brian I., Chief of Operations, Western Rivers Expeditions ............ 40

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 85

Reffalt, William C., The Wilderness Society and The Grand Canyon

Trust .............................................................................................................. 42

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 89

Additional material supplied:

Grisham, Mark, letter to The Grand Canyon Conservation Fund ............... 148

JR Engineering, Analysis Report .................................................................... 93

Statements by participants of various river trips .......................................... 156
(1)

ANALYSIS OF NATIONAL PARK SERVICE DATA

ON AIR OVERFLIGHT SOUND AT THE

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, AND THE

GRAND CANYON RIVER WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN AND ASSOCIATED COLORADO RIVERMANAGEMENT PLAN

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1998

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, WASHINGTON, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in

room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. HANSEN. Good morning. The Republicans and I think the

Democrats are holding caucuses and conferences this morning so

we have a lot of heavy issues going on and so they’ll be dribbling

in, I believe, as we continue.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Mr. HANSEN. Welcome to this oversight hearing on two important issues in the Grand Canyon National Park. The first deals

with the data that was used by the Park Service for a 1994 report

to Congress and subsequent environmental documents regarding

the substantial restoration of natural quiet and air tour overflights

conducted over the Grand Canyon and the second with a wilderness management plan being developed for the park.

Perceived problems with safety and the natural quiet caused by

air tour overflights above the Grand Canyon National Park have

been recurrent issues since at least 1975 when Congress first addressed these issues and passed Public Law 93–620. Another law

was passed in 1987 which addressed park safety and required the

Park Service to do a study on noise associated with all aircraft on

the natural quiet of this and a number of other national parks.

This law also requested the Park Service and FAA to provide recommendations which would substantially restore natural quiet in

the Grand Canyon.

These recommendations became the basis for the Park Service to

conduct studies regarding natural quiet restoration which were

then integrated into the report to Congress in 1994 and other documents. At issue today is how the Park Service developed and used

the data for these reports, including the modeling and the assump-
2

tions used in the modeling, which led the Park Service to conclude

that natural quiet has not been restored in the Grand Canyon.

In April 1998, the Grand Canyon National Park issued their

draft wilderness management plan and environmental assessment

for public comment. The stated purpose of the plan is to guide the

management of resources and visitors’ uses in the wilderness areas

and to address wilderness/back country issues within the context of

the Wilderness Act. For many people, however, the plan seems to

be becoming the primary document used by the Park Service for

the management of the entire national park, including the Colorado River management plan and the general management plan for

the park.

The direction of the Park Service to manage a full 94 percent of

the Grand Canyon as a huge wilderness area has caused this Subcommittee considerable concern. For example, there are 29,820

acres classified as potential wilderness, which includes the Colorado River corridor. The potential wilderness classification of the

river corridor is important because of the possibility of eliminating

motorized use of the river by commercial river tours. Today, we will

be discussing this and other issues as managing the Grand Canyon

as a huge wilderness area.

[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 the oversight hearing on two important

issues in the Grand Canyon National Park. The first deals with the Wilderness

Management Plan being developed for the park and the second with the data that

was used by the Park Service for a 1994 Report to Congress and subsequent environmental documents regarding the substantial restoration of natural quiet and air

tour overflights conducted over the Grand Canyon.

In April of 1998 the Grand Canyon National Park issued their Draft Wilderness

Management Plan and Environmental Assessment for public comment. The stated

purpose of the Plan is to guide the management of resources and visitor uses in wilderness areas and to address wilderness/backcountry issues within the context of

the Wilderness Act. For many people, however, the Plan seems to be becoming the

primary document used by the Park Service for the management of the entire National Park, including the Colorado River Management Plan and the General Management Plan for the park. The direction of the Park Service to manage a full 94

percent the Grand Canyon as a huge wilderness area has caused this Subcommittee

considerable concern. For example, there are 29,820 acres classified as ‘‘potential

wilderness’’ which includes the Colorado River corridor. The potential wilderness

classification of the river corridor is important because of the possibility of eliminating motorized use of the river by commercial river tours. Today, we will be discussing this, and other issues, as managing the Grand Canyon as a huge wilderness

area.

Perceived problems with safety and the ‘‘natural quiet’’ caused by air tour overflights above the Grand Canyon National Park, have been recurrent issues since at

least 1975 when Congress first addressed these issues and passed Public Law 93-

620. Another law was passed in 1987 which addressed park safety and required the

Park Service to do a study on noise associated with all aircraft on the ‘‘natural

quiet’’ of this and a number of other national parks. This law also requested the

Park Service and FAA to provide recommendations which would substantially restore natural quiet in the Grand Canyon. These recommendations become the basis

for the Park Service to conduct studies regarding natural quiet restoration which

were then integrated into the Report to Congress in 1994 and other documents. At

issue today is the how the Park Service developed and used the data for these reports, including the modeling and the assumptions used in the modeling, which led

the Park Service to conclude that natural quiet has not been restored in the Grand

Canyon.
3

With that as a background, 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.

Mr. HANSEN. With this background, I want to welcome our witnesses here today. Because time is short and one of the rules of

this Committee is we earnestly try to keep your oral statements to

5 minutes. Please keep in mind, by unanimous consent, all of the

entire statements that you will give will be included in the record

for us to look at and for our perusal. And if you could keep just

to 5 minutes. You’ll all see that clock or those three little lights in

front of Congressman Stump. And when those go red—or green,

yellow, red—just like a traffic light. And you all know how a traffic

light works and, if you’re like most Americans, you’ll run the red

light.

[Laughter.]

But, anyway, keep in mind that we would appreciate it. If you’ve

got something burning in your bosom that you think your eternal

life is hanging on, well, then go ahead and say it, but keep it short.

We don’t limit Members of Congress. That’s one of the few perks

that we still have left around this place. And we’re very pleased to

have our good colleague from Arizona—and the National Park of

the Grand Canyon is in his area—the Congressman from Arizona,

Mr. Stump. I understand that Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Hayworth, and

others will be walking in. They are trying to catch a few more tidbits out of the Committee. So, Mr. Stump, it’s always a pleasure

to be with you, my good friend. And we’ll turn the time to you.

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB STUMP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And let me

thank you for your favorable response to the request by Mr. Shadegg and myself to have this oversight hearing on wilderness and

oversight matters within the Grand Canyon National Park itself.

And also to thank you for holding earlier field hearings on the

issue of oversight. And, with your approval, Mr. Chairman, I would

like to submit for the record a formal statement. And I appreciate

the time and energy you and your staff have put in on a variety

of issues concerning those that we face at the Grand Canyon.

It’s a privilege for me to represent the Grand Canyon area and

to share that area with you, Mr. Chairman, to the north, and with

my colleague Mr. Shadegg and Mr. Hayworth, that area around

Flagstaff, the city of Flagstaff, and the Navajo reservation to the

south. I take great pride in trying to help visitors that request our

office for ways and times on just how to see the canyon and we try

to help in every way we can. And it is precisely for that diversity

of requests that we get for various visits and times to visit that I

think this hearing is so important today.

A balance between environmental concerns and accommodating

the many different ways that visitors see and experience the Grand

Canyon seems reasonable to me. And I am concerned that we are

headed in the opposite direction, however. Declaring 94 percent of

the park as wilderness and then so severely restricting the manner

in which the remaining part of the park can be used is not a very

friendly way to welcome visitors to the park. I believe that the ma-
4

jority of park visitors in their trip to the Grand Canyon is a oncein-a-lifetime experience. The very real possibility of eliminating

motorized raft trips because they don’t conform, for whatever reason, and demolishing the two lodges that visitors sort of see there,

doesn’t seem to be a friendly way, either.

Quite honestly, Mr. Chairman, I don’t believe that the Park Service is taking steps to enhance people’s trip to the canyon. But, rather, through their general management plan, their overflight plan,

and the proposed wilderness plan, the park appears to be asking

the visitor to give up how they want to see the canyon and fit to

the park’s idea how they should see the canyon.

I hope today’s hearing will shed some light on all the Park’s

plans and really give us that reasonable balance between environmental concerns and a diversity of visitor uses and how so much

wilderness can be justified. And when and how the decision was

made and how are we going to afford their plans, not only in terms

of how much it would cost to implement all they want to do, but

how much it’s going to cost the average family to visit the canyon.

And, Mr. Chairman, once again I thank you for having this hearing and I’d be glad to and happy to answer any questions that anybody may have. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stump follows:]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Stump. We appreciate your testimony. And feel free to join us on the dais if you’re so inclined.

Mr. STUMP. Thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. The Ranking Member, Mr. Faleomavaega, from

American Samoa is with us. I’ll turn to him.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, my apologies for being late.

Nothing like having jet lag in traffic.

My personal welcome to the gentleman from Arizona who just

testified this morning and, for the essence of time, I will submit my

record—my statement to be made part of the record and look forward to hearing from the members——

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. [continuing] and from our witnesses this

morning.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Faleomavaega follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. ENI FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF AMERICAN SAMOA

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.

Today’s hearing focuses on the Draft Wilderness Plan for the park and the related

Colorado River Management Plan, as well as a review of the Park Service’s data

on aircraft overflights within the park I understand that the public comment period

on the draft wilderness plan closed just last week and that the NPS is still a long

way away from putting out a revision of the Colorado River Plan for public comment.

As for aircraft overflights, this has been a source of continuing problems for

Grand Canyon National Park. I am pleased by the recent joint efforts of the National Park Service and the Federal Aviation Administration to address these problems.

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

Mr. HANSEN. The first panel that we have will be the superintendent of the Grand Canyon National Park. We appreciate you
5

being here with us. Also, Elling B. Halvorson, president of Papillon

Airways; Robin T. Harrison, consultant; John R. Alberti in engineering; and Dr. Ahuja, professor and regents researcher from

Georgia Institute of Technology. So, I think we’re putting your

names up there and if you can—they’re on both sides; you can see

where you are—we’d appreciate you coming up and taking your positions, if you would, please. Superintendent, you’re right on the

end there.

Superintendent Arnberger, do you want to be the first one?

Mr. ARNBERGER. Yes, sir. I’d be pleased to.

Mr. HANSEN. OK. I think that’s very appropriate. Would you

mind pulling that mike up to you so we can get this all on recording? I appreciate it. We’ll turn the time to you, sir. Thank you for

being here.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT ARNBERGER, SUPERINTENDENT,

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK

Mr. ARNBERGER. Thank you. It’s a real privilege to be here and

thank you for the invitation to represent Grand Canyon National

Park and the National Park Service on these two very important

issues. First of all, I will provide you some testimony on the acoustics and so forth.

I’m pleased to be able to provide you some analysis of the data

relating to the scenic air tour flights over the Grand Canyon. Public Law 100–91 in 1987, commonly referred to as the National

Parks Overflights Act, required a plan providing for the substantial

restoration of natural quiet and experience of the park and the protection of public health and safety from adverse effects associated

with aircraft overflights. This Act also required the National Park

Service to submit a report to Congress on whether this plan has

succeeded in substantially restoring the natural quiet in the park.

Extensive acoustical and sociological research was conducted between 1989 and 1993 to provide the information for the report.

This report was submitted to Congress—excuse me—in 1994 and

published in 1995. In this report, the National Park Service concluded that the phrase ‘‘substantial restoration of natural quiet’’ required 50 percent or more of the park to be without the sounds of

aircraft for 75 to 100 percent of the day.

In the recent case of The Grand Canyon Air Tour Coalition

versus the Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently ruled that the use of

acoustic data to determine the degree of natural quiet is not unreasonable. No acoustic research has been completed at Grand Canyon

since 1993, although the FAA has initiated some visitor-based,

dose-response research in the park this past summer.

To predict the acoustic impact of aircraft noise in natural and

park-like settings, the National Park Service contracted with leading modeling experts to design and build a state-of-the-art computer noise model that would accurately model the park acoustic

environment. The result was the National Park Service Overflights

Decision Support System, better known as NODSS, the Park Service model, which is able to measure the impacts of aviation noise

on ground visitors at a resolution of 300 meters, even with respect

to the complex topography of the Grand Canyon. Using inputs, in-
6

cluding the acoustic characteristics of the park and various aircraft

types and the number and the routing of overflights operations, the

model is able to characterize how close the park is to reaching its

goal of substantial restoration of natural quiet.

Now, the FAA uses the integrated noise model, with the acronym

of INM, to provide predictions of acoustic impacts on communities

around airports, and its results have been used for the preparation

of the environmental documents associated with the proposed and

the final rules. In the Grand Canyon case, the FAA has used INM

together with NPS acoustic data and the FAA estimates of the

number of overflights operations to produce the results expounded

in their environmental assessment.

An understanding of how much of the NPS natural quiet restoration goal has been achieved is critical to the rulemaking process in

which the NPS and the FAA are now engaged. The two models,

however, produce somewhat different results. As the two models

were developed for use in very different settings and for very different purposes, it’s not surprising that they do not produce identical results. Although we believe that the NODSS model, the FAA

model, is—I’m sorry. The NODSS model is the NPS model—is the

best product we could have produced at the time, neither model

has been field-validated in relation to its ability to precisely accomplish the intended purpose.

To determine how to best model the acoustic impacts of overflights-produced noise at the Grand Canyon, the FAA and the National Park Service have agreed to conduct a model-validation

study that should provide additional information regarding the accuracy of these models and perhaps others that we have not tested

at all. The design, implementation, and results of this model validation study will be monitored by a panel of internationally acclaimed acoustics experts. By combining the model validation study

with review by a technical review committee in an open process, we

expect to achieve both better science to enlighten our policy and

regulatory decisions and to also generate greater public confidence

our processes, the results, and our future decisions.

That concludes my remarks this morning. I’d be more than

happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Arnberger may be found at end

of hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Superintendent. We’re honored to have

on this Committee John Duncan from the State of Tennessee who

also chairs the Subcommittee on FAA. Mr. Duncan, do you have

any comments you’d like to make at this time before we proceed

with this panel?

Mr. DUNCAN. No, Mr. Chairman. As you know, I went to your

district and we had a hearing on this several months ago and I’m

still very much interested in it. But I would just go ahead and listen to the comments of the witnesses at this time. But thank you

very much for giving me this opportunity.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Mr. Halvorson, we’ll turn to you. If

you’ll pull that mike up to you, please.
7

STATEMENT OF ELLING B. HALVORSON, PRESIDENT,

PAPILLON AIRWAYS, INC.

Mr. HALVORSON. Mr. Chair, members, and others, it’s a pleasure

to be here today. My name is Elling Halvorson and I own Papillon

Helicopters, Grand Canyon Helicopters. And I’m a part owner of

Grand Canyon Airlines. I represent those two organizations, as

well as the 2,000, more or less, people who work in that industry

at the canyon and get their living from it. Also members of HAI

and the United States Air Tour Association, who operate in that

area.

You have my written statement and it’s before you, but this

morning I’d like to just speak to you from my heart. In 1986, aircraft flew all over in the Grand Canyon. The Public Law 100–91

was passed in 1987 and, at that time, there was some good reason

for that law. The thing that was different about that point in time

and now is that the operators, the FAA, and the Park Service all

got together to find out from the Park Service those sensitive areas

that they wanted quietness. We worked together closely and we

came up with a special rule SFAR 50–2 that satisfied everyone at

that point in time.

But just as we see the goals changing in the wilderness, we see

the goals continually changing in the sound issues over the canyon.

What was good 10 years ago is no good today evidently. And I

might remind us all that the aircraft is the only thing that doesn’t

ever have to be cleaned up behind. It’s the only thing that doesn’t

leave any impact on the Grand Canyon of a permanent nature.

The report to Congress that was required by Public Law 100–91

had many biases in it. And, in particular today, I’d like to talk

about the computer modeling. The report says that there’s only

one-half or less than one-half of 1 percent of the entire Grand Canyon in which you can’t hear aircraft. That is a blatant false statement. There are 10 times or more that amount of area where you

cannot aircraft, touring aircraft, at all, immediately adjacent, even,

to the superintendent’s office. There are hundreds of square miles

in the park where you will never hear a touring aircraft.

I realize that this was a problem with the report, that it had biases. And I tried to call it to everyone’s attention. I couldn’t get any

response out of the Park Service and so I thought the only way to

address this is to get a technical study that could be compared

against the report to Congress. I knew of JR Engineering in Seattle, Washington, a company that specializes in aviation acoustics

and I made an arrangement with them to secure accurate data of

every flight during a period of the year that went through the

Grand Canyon, its route, the type of aircraft, and the air speed to

which it operated, so an accurate analysis could be done and computer modeling.

When I received the preliminary draft, I spoke to many people

in the Park Service, including my good friend—and he is a good

friend—the superintendent here. And I actually showed them a few

pages from the report. I told them that I wanted to keep this report

confidential. I didn’t want to use this report. I asked the people in

the Park Service to clean up their own act and I would put that

report away forever because I didn’t want any embarrassment.
8

I held that report for over a year. During that period of time, I

explained in workshops, in hearings, in written responses to NPS,

to the FAA, and through these individual meetings what was

wrong with the report that the Park Service had put out. I got no

response back. And finally, about 6 months ago, at a workshop in

Flagstaff, Arizona, I was asked by the Park Service, by the FAA,

by the environmental community, if I would share that report.

And that’s the reason that we’re here today. I’m not a technical

person but I know that when I can’t hear sound and it shows on

a chart that I’m hearing sound, that it’s basically wrong. And I

think that you’ll find out today, as this progresses, that the heart

of the issue is that 50–2, the SFAR that we’re working under,

meets and even exceeds the goals that the National Park Service

had set for themselves. And I would repeat that. That we have met

or exceeded the goals that the Park Service has set for itself.

And the action that I hope would be taken is to put this program

on hold, to freeze the goals because we have so many moving targets. Freeze the goals that the Park Service has set. And that a

new report should be prepared that accurately and reasonably establishes the conditions at the national park. And also that the

decibels for noticeability should be standardized to everyone’s comfort level.

Thank you for this time. I appreciate you calling this hearing.

This is the process that it should go through and I’m delighted to

be here.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Halvorson may be found at end

of hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Halvorson.

Mr. Harrison.

STATEMENT OF ROBIN T. HARRISON, P.E., CONSULTANT

Mr. HARRISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Hansen, and members

of the Committee. I am the guy who can take the credit or perhaps

the blame for being the fellow who first proposed the systematic assessment of natural quiet as a separate resource. In 1972, when I

and my colleagues made this proposal, we were thought of as being

somewhat heretical because how can sound, as a resource, be equal

to the resources that we manage—wood, water, wildlife, recreation,

et cetera?

I’ve spent the last 30 years of my life with the U.S. Forest Service as the program leader for aviation and acoustics at the U.S.

Forest Service Technology and Development Center in San Dimas.

In that office, I was the fellow who prepared the Forest Service report to Congress in response to Public Law 100-91 and, as I’m sure

you’re familiar with that report, the conclusions are quite different

from those of the Park Service. In 1972, we proposed that any definition of natural quiet would have to be based on human impact

and this, after 20-some years, is still not the case. As Elling points

out, the definitions of natural quiet seem to be a moving target.

As part of my duties at the Forest Service, I was the technical

adviser to the Park Service in the initial stages of their scientific

work, which led to the preparation of the report to Congress. It is

through the work of my colleagues at the Forest Service and I that

the contractors, the scientific contractors, who worked for the Park
9

Service in the development of the data that underlies the report

that we discussed today, that’s how that came about.

In the initial stages of this work, the Forest Service and the Park

Service worked together, as if it were one project. That is, myself

and two colleagues from the Forest Service advised on technical

issues with regard to the Park Service study. The initial approach

was to get the best scientific minds that could be found, contract

them to perform research, and develop impartial scientific data

which could be used to develop and support aircraft management

studies and wilderness strategies for both organizations.

I was excited and honored to be part of this effort and we worked

diligently toward timely fulfillment of the congressional mandate.

I visited many, many Forest Service wildernesses, many parks,

making measurements of sounds from aircraft myself and supervising many more measurements. Concurrently with this sound

measurement work, we oversaw careful research with regard to the

effects of aircraft noise on wildlife, on structures, with regard to

visitor safety, et cetera. For the first time in 20-some years, as a

researcher and manager, I had at my disposal the money and resources to answer scientific questions which I had first raised over

20 years ago.

But I was troubled by some of my visits to the national parks.

In Hawaii Volcanoes, for instance, the Park Service employees

asked me to meet with them. They wanted to put in front of me

their concerns about how the noise of helicopter overflights in and

near the park affected them. They wanted me to know just what

horrible racket they were forced to put up with. I asked them about

observable effects on wildlife. I asked them about visitor complaints. I asked them about compromises to safety from the helicopter overflights. But they never gave me any concrete data. I

didn’t, at the time, read Public Law 100–91 to concern itself with

the employees and so I didn’t carefully heed the things they said.

In retrospect, I should have realized what I was seeing and hearing.

As the scientific work began to roll in, the Forest Service team

busied itself preparing our report to Congress. But the Park Service seemed to be less impressed with the results received. Payments were delayed; revisions were demanded; more work was proposed. And I found myself being invited to fewer and fewer parks

and being consulted less often. By this time, it was clear to me

what was happening. The Park Service was not happy with the results that it had obtained from its contractors because these results

did not support the preconceived notion that the parks, and the

Grand Canyon in particular, had a serious natural quiet problem.

The problem I have, as an acoustical scientist and engineer, with

the work that is done for the Park Service is not the basic scientific

work, which is completely defensible and of the highest quality.

And my friend Supervisor Arnberger is very manly to admit that

a reassessment is needed. We’ve all heard the old expression: Garbage in, garbage out. The computer program NODSS is probably an

excellent framework in which to predict the response of park visitors to noise. However, the inputs as to what constitutes natural

quiet, what is an acceptable level, are seriously deficient.
10

If I could have not more than 90 seconds, your honor. There is

a system, a way, that we scientists like to do things. Scientific

work should be transparent. It’s known by the name of the peerreview system. Scientists should submit to their peers all of the

work that they do for review. Arguments will ensue at the scientific

level and, eventually, more or less consensus will be achieved with

regard to the validity of scientific work.

The work that has been done at the Park Service has not been

subject to this transparency. Although NODSS, as I say, is an excellent framework with which to begin the work, the assessment of

human impact has been seriously deficient for technical reasons

which we simply don’t have time to go into, but which I have submitted for the record and I ask that it be included.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. HARRISON. I’d like to close by saying it’s very encouraging to

me to hear Rob talk about an internationally acclaimed panel of

acousticians to review this work. I would just like to encourage this

Committee to reject the Park Service’s report as it has been submitted and to consider the new work the Park Service might do

while maintaining oversight of the impartiality of the people who

review this work.

Thank you very much. It’s a pleasure to have been able to address you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harrison may be found at end

of hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Harrison. Appreciate your comments.

We’ve been joined by another one of our Arizona colleagues, Mr.

John Shadegg. As I explained to you, the members who arrive, we

would have them give their opening statement, if they so desire.

And we don’t hold the members to a time limit. That’s one of the

perks we have. And we also do say anything when they whisper,

but when you do, we do. So if we—we would like to turn to Mr.

Shadegg.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN B. SHADEGG, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Mr. SHADEGG. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will not give my

full prepared written statement but I would like to submit it for

the record.

I want to express my sincere appreciation for your holding this

hearing. It is an extremely important hearing, I think, for the people of my district, for the people of all of Arizona, for the people

of all of the Southwest, and for the people of the Nation. I wrote

my substantial paper in law school on the difficulties of governmental agency trying to strike a balance in public policy. It happened to be the Environmental Protection Agency and it was the

issue of sulphur dioxide and the copper mines in Arizona being

pushed both ways or counterpressured from opposite directions.

On public policy questions, it is incredibly difficult and I understand and sympathize with the position that all people in public

administrative positions are in when they have to do something

like the task of developing this wilderness management plan. But
11

I think it is my job now, in my current position, to see that they

do that in a fashion which produces the best possible product.

I am concerned about portions of the wilderness management

plan. I am concerned about aspects of the wilderness management

plan which say, for example, while on the one hand we hear that

it will not dictate future decisions, such as the question of any motors ever on the river, there’s language in the plan which says ‘‘all

future plans have to be consistent with this plan.’’ I need to get

that clarified in my mind.

I have concern about—well, I have extremely strong feelings, Mr.

Chairman, about the importance of protecting the pristine and unadulterated character of the vast portion of the park, including, in

my opinion, virtually everything in the inner canyon. I have concern that the wilderness plan, particularly with regard to areas

above the rim, goes too far. And it proposes to treat, as wilderness,

areas which are not currently being treated as wilderness and

areas which are not currently being used as wilderness and areas

which, I believe, it is unclear at best that they comply with the requirements of the Wilderness Act for designation as wilderness.

And I think there are grave questions, Mr. Chairman, about

those areas being closed or now treated as wilderness, in that it

will restrict the access of people who use them now as access points

to take back-country hikes and will restrict access by people who

are either physically handicapped or too young or too old to be able

to enjoy a pristine back-country experience. And I feel very strongly

that in the development of this plan, we have to strike a very careful balance, we must make sure that the undamaged portions of

the park, which can and should forever be wilderness, are protected

in that fashion.

But we have to be equally certain that areas of the park which

are now not wilderness are not suddenly treated as wilderness and

access is denied to a number of people. And that is a grave concern

to me because I think we owe that obligation to people who are interested in using the park and can use it only in their own ways

and not in just the purely back-country take a significant block of

time and go hike the back country fashion.

I also am concerned—and I’m going to ask questions today, Mr.

Chairman—about the process that led us to where we are right

now and the timing of that process. I am committed, deeply committed, to public input and I have concerns and intend to ask questions about the ability of the general public to have input on this

plan. So suffice it to say, I have concerns. I appreciate the holding

of the hearing. I think the hearing is incredibly important. And I

look forward to being able to question and talk with the witnesses

as we go forward. And I would submit my full statement for the

record.

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shadegg follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN B. SHADEGG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF ARIZONA

Chairman Hansen, first I would like to thank you for holding this important hearing today. As a native Arizonan, I am privileged to live in the Grand Canyon State

where the Park has been a part of my life since childhood. Some of my most vivid
12

memories of the Canyon originated with trips I took as a child and are refreshed

with later trips I have taken with my family.

I consider the Grand Canyon to be one of the most stunningly beautiful and pristine natural wonders of the world. Its scenic beauty must be protected and preserved to the greatest extent practicable. At the same time, it is critical that people

of all ages, fitness levels and financial means be able to enjoy the Park as well. We

must strike a careful balance, preserving and protecting the natural state of the

Park while allowing reasonable access for all who want to visit it, and we can. My

goal is to maintain the awesome beauty of the entire Park—and the unaltered and

pristine character of vast portions of it—while still allowing different people to enjoy

their Grand Canyon experience in a variety of ways.

Let me be clear: the integrity of the Grand Canyon must be protected. We should

set aside significant portions of the Park as wilderness, particularly in areas within

the Canyon. I do not support constructing a gondola from rim to river, building casinos, paving roads to the bottom of the Canyon, turning any portion of the rim into

a parking lot, or any other desecration or inconsistent development within the Park.

However, I am concerned with the draft Wilderness Management Plan in its

present form. First I believe the process leading to its creation was flawed because

the plan is in large part based on the 1980 draft. No public hearings on the plan

have been conducted in since 1976—22 years ago. To put this in perspective, the

last time public hearings were held, the immediate past president of The Sierra

Club, Adam Werbach, was in diapers. Some people who would like to hear a presentation of the plan and testify about it had not even been born when the only public

hearings on the Plan were held, although they were able to vote in the past two

presidential elections. Other people who had the chance to attend these hearings

and testify in 1976 have been dead for almost a quarter of a century! Beyond these

procedural deficiencies and perhaps because of them, I am concerned that, in its

present form, the plan does not strike the proper balance between preserving wilderness and allowing access.

As written, the Plan would set aside nearly 95 percent of the Park as wilderness,

including the Colorado River corridor and the vast majority of the land above the

North and South Rims of the Canyon. It would limit access by eliminating a number

of roads, and as written, almost certainly will lead to a total ban on motorized raft

trips on the Colorado River. Finally, some critics argue, and it is not clear that they

are incorrect, that the Plan could have a negative effect on the ability of the Park

Service to maintain facilities inside the canyon including Phantom Ranch and the

cross-canyon water pipeline.

Declaring vast areas of the Park, particularly above the rim, as wilderness when

those areas are not ‘‘untrammeled by man . . . or ‘primeval’ [in] character and influence’’ and are currently being used by recreationalists in a manner inconsistent with

wilderness designation, could have a devastating effect on the ability of people, particularly those of different ages and fitness levels, to use and enjoy the Park. It

would force the closing of an unknown number of roads above the rim and ban the

use of motorized vehicles on these roads. Eliminating most, if not virtually all, roads

that have existed historically in the name of preservation is not what the Wilderness Act contemplated or requires. And, it would discriminate against many Park

users including individuals who are using these roads as access points for back

country backpacking trips, those who are elderly or disabled and families with small

children by severely limiting the areas of the Park which they can access. While I

respect the right of individuals who are physically fit enough to use and enjoy the

vast untouched areas throughout the Park—virtually all of the inner canyon—and

I strongly support protecting those areas through wilderness treatment, I believe it

may be unnecessary and inconsistent with the language of the Wilderness Act and

its spirit to close numerous existing roads currently used by the public, making the

vast majority of portions of the park above the rim ‘‘off limits.’’

People who have the time, money and desire to experience the Grand Canyon in

a completely natural setting should have the right to do so and their right should

be preserved and protected. The Draft Wilderness Management Plan points out that

the highest proportion of users of remote areas are young professionals making

more than $50,000 a year. But the elderly, disabled and families with small children

or those who simply cannot afford an extended vacation should not be unreasonably

denied the opportunity to experience the beauty and splendor of other portions of

the Park. Simply stated, the Park is big enough to accommodate both if we pursue

a balanced and reasonable approach. The intent of the National Parks Act is to ensure that our country’s greatest treasures are protected and preserved but that they

are also available for everyone to enjoy—regardless of age, health, or income level.
13

Some argue that those who can’t enjoy the Grand Canyon in a ‘‘wilderness’’ setting don’t deserve to see the Canyon. One of the authors who is cited a number of

times in the Draft Wilderness Management Plan has written:

Those humans who respect the land are willing to walk long distances. If this

is an ‘‘elitist’’ attitude, so be it.

This underlying philosophy toward access to the Grand Canyon is incredibly unfair and simply wrong. Many people who, by reason of handicap or age, cannot possibly ‘‘walk long distances’’ nonetheless deeply respect the Park. I would point to the

letters in the record from various handicapped individuals which make this point

in a far more compelling fashion than I ever could. The Park does not belong only

to those who are physically fit enough and financially able to take the necessary

time off of work to ‘‘walk long distances.’’ The bias in this statement that the disabled, the young, the old and those who cannot afford the time to hike the Canyon

therefore categorically do not respect it, is outrageous. The Park belongs to everyone.

In July, I met with Superintendent Robert Arnberger and he assured me that he

does not wish to limit access to the Park. I am hopeful that a Plan which maintains

the undeveloped character and scenic beauty of the vast untouched portions of the

Grand Canyon without unreasonably restricting access to large portions of the Park

which are not now wilderness in character can be developed. I am willing to work

with Superintendent Arnberger, as well as with other interested groups and individuals, including my constituents, to achieve a consensus which protects the Park

while not ureasonably curtailing the right of individuals of all levels of physical ability and financial means to enjoy their national park.

While I am anxious to hear the testimony today, from my review of the procedure

leading to the development of the Plan, the Plan itself and the comments and testimony submitted for this hearing, I must acknowledge that it is almost impossible

to avoid the conclusion that:

(1)at a minimum a new Environmental Assessment (EA) must be performed;

(2) an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) needs to be prepared in order to

comply with the law; and

(3) that for the benefit of my constituents and others born in the last 22 years,

the process should be reinitiated and new public hearings held.

I hope the National Park Service will seriously consider these points and work

with Congress and the public and reevaluate its position that this Plan is ready for

implementation.

Mr. HANSEN. And thank you for your testimony.

Mr. Alberti, we’ll turn the time to you, sir.

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. ALBERTI, JR ENGINEERING

Mr. ALBERTI. Honorable Chairman, members, good morning. My

name is John Alberti. If I could, before I go on the clock, I’d like

to introduce into the record color copies of two attachments to my

testimony. That’s attachment two and attachment eight. Attachment two is a diagram of the SFAR 50–2 area, showing the flightfree zones and the flight corridors between those zones and around

those zones. Attachment 8 is the same diagram showing the contours of areas where tour aircraft would be audible, according to

our study, more than 25 percent of the time.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. ALBERTI. We’re back on the clock now, I hope. I first became—my company specializes in aircraft noise and I first became

involved in the noise issue in the Grand Canyon not to study it but

to reduce it. Elling Halvorson approached me 5 years ago to assist

him in developing an ultra-quiet helicopter for use in the canyon.

The product of that work, the S–55QT, which only now, 5 years

later, is nearing FAA approval, is 10 decibels quieter than existing

aircraft operating in the park. The implication of that is that, at

any given point, that aircraft will be audible for about half the time

an existing aircraft would be and the area over which it would be
14

audible would be less than half that of existing aircraft. It’s a far

more dramatic improvement in the noise environment of the park

than the Park Services claims with the rather draconian measures

that they propose in their 1994 report.

My point in bringing that up is that quiet aircraft are an extremely desirable solution that continue to make aircraft tours

available to the public, while protecting the environment. It’s also

a very expensive, very time-consuming, and very high-risk undertaking, and very extraordinary for an operator to do that out of his

own pocket. It’s also very hard to justify that when the goalposts

keep moving and when you cannot be sure that the regulatory

agencies are going to treat your data and the acoustic situation in

a scientifically valid manner.

The 1994 report to Congress is the subject and the principal conclusion of that report is that substantial restoration of natural

quiet has not occurred. As Superintendent Arnberger described,

they define substantial restoration as having occurred when 50 percent or more of the park is free of audible or noticeable tour aircraft noise 75 percent or more of the time.

Reviewing this report, I find the most prevalent error really is

that of non sequitur. Conclusions are drawn which are simply not

supported by the data. The very first page starts out with a concern that tour aircraft noise might startle horses and mules and result in injury, yet there’s not an iota of evidence that that’s ever

happened.

If you turn to attachment three, you find this very emotionally

evocative diagram of a helicopter sonically bombarding a historic

site with the implication that it’s doing structural damage to it.

Again, there’s not an iota of evidence that that’s every happened

and, in fact, it’s an absurd assumption given the sound levels of

tour aircraft.

Further, to the substantial restoration of natural quiet, the Park

Service has sent observers into the park. They had professional

acoustical technicians go to 23 different sites where they expected

to find tour aircraft noise. More than half those sites were directly

under the flight corridors. And these observers were vigilant observers who were doing nothing but trying to observe aircraft noise;

they weren’t looking at scenery. At 15 of those 23 sites, they reported observing aircraft noise less than 25 percent of the time.

When the Park Service asked the park’s visitors: Were you annoyed by tour aircraft noise? Only 5 percent were. Sixty six percent

said: What tour aircraft noise? I didn’t even notice any.

The only thing they really have to hang their hat on is the

NODSS computer model, which, as Superintendent Arnberger observed, has not been field-validated. And it’s very difficult for us to

study because we don’t know what went into it. Luckily about a

year ago we did do a study. And in that study we found that in

93 percent of the park—and this, by the way, our study was done

with the FAA’s INM program, which is the industry standard for

aircraft noise measurements and contour projection around airports—we found that in 93 percent of the park, or the study area

which was the eastern half of the park, that tour aircraft would not

observable more than 25 percent of the time.
15

The FAA and the NPS did do an INM study of their own. We

did have a chance to review that. We found a number of very

alarming assumptions that went into that. One was a very unreasonably low threshold of noticeability. That is, the sound level

which, by their analysis, would trigger them to say that an aircraft

is now noticeable. They used over most of the park 15 to 17 decibels which most of us have never experienced. It’s very near the

threshold of human hearing. I’m over the limit; I’ll be done in just

a second.

It’s contrary to a study which the Park Service hired Bolt,

Brannick, and Newman to do in 1994 where they again sent

trained observers with highly sensitive low-noise level microphones

down into the park. If you look on attachment six, you will find the

results of that. These observers, again, vigilant observers, noticed

that the average level at which they first observed an aircraft was

30 decibels and that’s also the average level at which they ceased

to be able to identify the aircraft noise. We used 30 decibels in our

study.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. ALBERTI. The BB&N report also showed that, for a non-vigilant observer, someone who might be looking at scenery, a level 10

decibels higher was more appropriate as the trigger level. Again,

in our study, which, again, you see the results of in attachment 8,

we used the 30 decibel level.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. ALBERTI. Just briefly, they’ve made some incorrect corrections. The speed of the helicopter’s flying through the park is different than that in the government noise model and the correction

that they made incorrectly increased that level where it should

have decreased it. They eliminated the lateral ground attenuation—and I’m going to leave this to Dr. Ahuja because I’m running out of time to discuss. But it’s extremely extraordinary to

change this computer model, the FAA’s own model, they actually

had to go in and change the code. Engineering companies like mine

cannot do this. It’s not a user-changeable thing. When we use this

thing under FAA direction, the lateral attenuation of sound is always included. So, as I say, this was very unusual and very unjustified.

They also assumed that a day is 12 hours, not 24 hours, as most

of us might suppose. And the effect of that, of course, is that when

they calculate the percent time above a certain level, that doubles

that percent time.

The net result was, of all these errors, is that they’ve greatly

overstated the noise impact and I think, as a result of that, their

study is flawed. It’s really contrary to their own observations. It’s

contrary to our neutral computations. And I think they’ve failed to

make the case that natural quiet has not been substantially restored under SFAR 50–2. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Alberti may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.

Dr. Ahuja, we’ll turn to you, sir. If you’ll bring the mike up to

you, please.
16

STATEMENT OF K. K. AHUJA, PROFESSOR AND REGENTS

RESEARCHER, GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Dr. AHUJA. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Krish Ahuja. I’m

a professor of aerospace engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology. I teach aeroacoustics and rocket propulsion.

I’d like to start out by telling you that, right now, if I wasn’t

speaking, in this room, the decibel level is about 55 dBA. A typical

level in a quiet residence is 40 dBA and, in a recording studio, it’s

about 30 dBA. And if you were located twice as far away from me

now, my sound would go down by 6 decibels. Every time distance

is doubled, it (noise) goes down by 6 decibels. So I just wanted to

give you a feel for the numbers.

I’ll go directly in here. In August 1997, I was asked by Helicopter

Association International to provide an unbiased opinion of an engineering analysis report which I believe you have. This would be

JR Engineering report which Mr. Alberti prepared. I was asked to

give an unbiased opinion on this report. The report is entitled:

Analysis of National Park Service Data on Air Overflight Sound at

Grand Canyon National Park.

In my written testimony, this is referred to as JR 182, that’s the

number of the report. Because of the direct relevance of this report

and this review to this oversight hearing, the peer review prepared

by me forms the backbone of my written testimony.

Mr. Alberti’s analysis claims to have shown—and I think he

mentioned that, but I’d like to reiterate that. I’m going to quote

him: ‘‘The government studies were biased and misleading due to

several invalid and unscientific assumptions that overstated sound

levels and sound detectability.’’ It also claims that, ‘‘When these errors are corrected, the result is that over 95 percent of the park

will meet the Park Service’s own definition of natural quiet in the

busiest month of the air tours.’’ That’s July. And I agree with these

claims made by Mr. Alberti in his report.

Mr. Alberti’s report shows very convincingly that, even with the

biasing effects introduced by invalid and unscientific assumptions

in the government studies, the tour aircraft noise level was below

30 dBA, 75 percent of the time, in about 86 percent of the park.

I mentioned earlier that 30 dBA is the typical level in a typical recording studio. And also, if one accepts the findings of BBN study,

which was done for the NPS and which is reference three of my

written testimony, if one accepts that 30 dBA is the average level

of onset and offset of airplane noise detectability at the canyons,

the NPS definition of substantial restoration of natural quiet has

been met.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Dr. AHUJA. A second study related to computation of the impact

of tour aircraft on natural quiet in the eastern Grand Canyon National Park, which is also documented in this report, and is based

on 1996 operations with 1996 aircraft. This report provides the contours of time above the threshold of noticeability, that is the time

some levels are higher than 30 dBA for each month. I did not compute the predictions, but these computations show that actual 1996

air tour operations in the eastern end of the park easily met the

NPS definition of substantial restoration of quiet. The results of
17

this analysis seem quite reasonable to me and I have explained

that in the written testimony.

Most importantly, I question the elimination by FAA of what is

referred to as lateral attenuation, and also Mr. Alberti alluded to

that. Elimination of lateral attenuation in computing aircraft noise

leads to overstatement of sound levels and sound detectability.

Now what is lateral attenuation? Lateral attenuation is defined

as the additional sound absorption or attenuation experienced by

sound propagating to the side of the flight path by factors that are

not readily accounted for. Lateral attenuation is considered to be

a function of ground properties, the elevation angle of the vehicle—

that’s the aircraft or the helicopter, the distance between the

source and the receiver, weather conditions near the ground, and

the noise source characteristics. Thus, this phenomena includes

such effects as ground reflection effects, refraction effects, airplane

shielding effects, so on and so forth.

If lateral attenuation is kept in the computation, one would calculate less noise. FAA switched off this portion of the computation

in their program, in their calculation of noise at the national park,

which provided an overstatement of noise. In summary, my review

of Mr. Alberti’s report agreed with most of his findings. And what

is left in time, I would like to say—mention to you . . . this lateral

attenuation is very important.

If it’s not clear: If I am flying an airplane toward you, Mr. Chairman, and pretend the airplane has only one helicop—one propeller,

on—say on the left-hand side. And this young lady (on the left) is

far away on this side and that young lady (on the right) is far away

on that side and if the propeller is only on one side, OK? So one

propeller. She, (the lady on the left side) would hear more noise

than that young lady (on the right side). And the reason for that

is that the fuselage of the aircraft is shielding (noise) and that also

goes into lateral attenuation.

Whereas, in all these analysis, people have assumed that lateral

attenuation is nothing else but absorption by ground, it contains

many other factors. It’s an empirical expression and that was

switched off in their calculations. And that could—and that probably provided about four decibels higher noise in their calculations

than it really is.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Ahuja may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Doctor. Appreciate your comments.

We’ll now turn to members for questions and I will limit them

to 5 minutes each. And we’ll start with the gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,

I’m somewhat surprised that here we have the highest technology

or the most-advanced technology in the world or I assumed our

country has, but we seem to have some very strong disagreements

on the acoustics, the engineering, the research. I’m somewhat—I

just don’t understand—I suppose it’s the same as having five engineers and five lawyers you’ll have five different opinions on the

same issue. I thought engineering or physics was such an exact

science, just like adding two plus two equals four. Lawyers might

have differences of opinion on different issues, but I thought these
18

scientific issues ought to be such that you don’t question the viability of some of the findings.

Mr. Arnberger, Superintendent Arnberger, I noticed in your

statement that you have worked closely with the FAA. I mean have

some of these findings gone to both Arizona universities’ engineering schools or UC Berkeley or MIT or Cal Poly? I mean, I’m very

surprised that there definitely is a very strong disagreement on the

findings on the noise.

Mr. ARNBERGER. There is. And I don’t think that the science of

noise measurement over a natural resource is as finely tuned a

science as all of us would hope. In fact, there are models that have

been developed that well predict and so forth the noise and the impacts of sounds and so forth around airport environments, but I

don’t think that the science of doing that type of business around

in a natural resource setting, much less a place like the Grand

Canyon, is, in fact, a precise science.

As a representation of that, the FAA used their model that they

have had—and it’s the only model they have, the INM. And the

Park Service, believing that, in fact, natural resources was a different type of place, went to the private sector, to the scientific and

the engineering sector to develop this other model that, in fact,

would give a better representation. And it is that difficulty that

forms the crux of the issue.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Let me ask Mr. Halvorson, I noted that you

commented on Public Law 100–91 that’s supposed to be the bible

of trying to have some sense of factual evidence to determine what

is the noise situation here, but it seems that you’re suggesting here

that the National Park Service keeps moving the goalposts in

terms of what requirements—and I can fully appreciate your concerns in private industry, the kind of requirements and restrictions

that are given aircraft overflights in the canyon. I mean, you feel

that you’re really getting a raw deal from the National Park Service in this instance?

Mr. HALVORSON. Yes, I really do. What’s happened here, in essence, is that they have gone in and they have aborted the computer program. They’re the only people that can go in and they

took out lateral, over-the-ground, attenuation, which is the absorption of sound by the ground. They increased the decibels of each

of the types of aircraft and they estimated more aircraft than were

flying in the canyon. And those are some of the primary things that

they have done.

Another thing they did is that they took this audibility factor of

the decibels of audibility where their trained people were sitting in

the canyon trying to hear a sound. And when they first heard it,

it was at 30 decibels and when they last heard it, it was 30 decibels. Well, they then lowered that to 17 decibels, which is twice

less sound than these people heard—or a thousand times, it is? I

mean, it’s an absurd level.

You can do anything with numbers, you know. But if the program is kept clean, if the base to which they’re working the program is a reasonable base, then the facts and the findings are

going to come out as the JR study shows. Yes, I think we’re getting

a raw deal and I think that report to Congress should be put on
19

hold and that this process should be put on hold until we get some

accurate data.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. One of ironies of overflights—and I’m not a

scientist, but I know on commercial aircraft they have to by requirement of the FAA, you have to put on what is known as noise

kits or hush kits. They’re about $300,000 to put these hush kits.

Now, technologically, this is not possible for diesel-fueled aircraft.

I mean, I don’t know how else to describe them. Not jets.

Now another thing that I also know for a fact is that the military

is exempted from any kind of noise kits to put on their aircraft. Do

we have any sound booms or anything in the canyon with these

military aircraft overflights?

Mr. HALVORSON. We don’t have sonic——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Nothing?

Mr. HALVORSON. [continuing] sonic booms. They’ve been cooperating pretty well in recent years on their flight profiles. For a long

time, it was a larger problem.

There are things that can be done to make these aircraft more

quiet and what the industry has been asking for is, because this

is a great expense, give us some incentives to help us to achieve

this. We want to achieve it. My own company—we’ve spent millions

of dollars and 5 years of effort to try and get a quiet aircraft certified. Grand Canyons Airlines, Scenic Airlines, and some others

have put quiet propellers on their aircraft. And there are more

things that can be done. Yes, we can accomplish some sort of——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I’m sorry. My time’s up. Thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Thank the gentleman. The gentleman

from Arizona, Mr. Stump.

Mr. STUMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Harrison, what happened to the original data that was collected that you said showed

that there was not a problem with the noise from the tour aircraft?

Mr. HARRISON. Well, in the larger—Congressman, it has been reported to you in the U.S. Forest Service report to Congress. I have

a copy which I’d be happy to leave with you and I think there is

a copy in the record. What we concluded is that, in the wilderness

system, although there are occasional problems with overflights, it

is not a broad problem. Admittedly, Grand Canyon has a much

more intense problem.

The original data still exists, and it exists in the reports of Bolt,

Beranek, and Newman and HMMH, the two original contractors

that were selected by the National Park Service. I can’t pronounce.

I apologize. The gentleman from Samoa. And I’m a Hawaiian too.

I’m sorry.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Call me John Wayne. It’ll be all right.

[Laughter.]

Mr. HARRISON. Congressman Wayne has——

[Laughter.]

[continuing] has indicated their—I will agree with Congressman

Wayne and disagree with my good friend Rob here. The science

does exist.

Mr. ARNBERGER. Rob. I’m Rob. He’s Bob.

Mr. HARRISON. The good—the science does exist. It’s just that the

way the Park Service has applied it is not in accordance with scientific and impartial principles. Part of the reason for this, I think,
20

is because of a preexisting bias and part of it is because they’re

badly advised by some of their advisers. But the science does exist.

John analyzed it correctly and SFAR 50–2 has restored the natural

quiet and the original data does show that.

Mr. STUMP. Thank you. Mr. Arnberger, you stated the Park Service used the latest model experts to come up with these computer

devices that recorded all this. Do you have any of those experts

here with you today? It was my understanding that Mr. Henry was

requested to appear before the Committee.

Mr. ARNBERGER. No, I do not have any of those experts. The letter that we received from the Committee, in fact, invited myself.

Mr. Henry is absent. He’s on a business trip to Moab, Utah. He

was not formally invited. He’s not here. Neither were the FAA

modeling experts. So I do feel a little bit lonely sitting up here and

I’m doing my best with this highly technical information.

Mr. STUMP. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Ahuja, I was interested in your comparisons of noise levels. And you said that a 40

dBA level was the typical very quiet residential neighborhood. Is

that correct?

Dr. AHUJA. That’s correct.

Mr. DUNCAN. And you said a 30 level was the level in a sound

recording studio.

Dr. AHUJA. That would be in a recording studio.

Mr. DUNCAN. And then I noticed in your report that you say you

agree with the report by JR Engineering that, when the errors are

corrected in the government study, the result is that, over 95 percent of the park would meet the Park Service’s own definition of

natural quiet in the busiest month of air tours, which is July.

Dr. AHUJA. This is—this was a finding of the JR report.

Mr. DUNCAN. But then I noticed, Mr. Alberti—Dr. Alberti, in

your report, you say that to go to a level of 15 dBA to 17 dBA,

these levels barely exceed the threshold of hearing and would be

exceeded by rustling leaves, any hint of wind, or a hiker’s footsteps.

Is that correct?

Mr. ALBERTI. That is correct. Actually, it’s not Dr. Alberti, it’s

Mr. Alberti, but I thank you for the compliment.

Mr. DUNCAN. OK. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Mr. ALBERTI. That is correct. And that is, I think, an important

fact when you consider what constitutes detectability. If a slight

amount of breeze is rustling through even past terrain or a brushy

area, if the hiker adjusts his pack a little, shuffles his feet in the

ground, all those things will make noise levels well in excess of 15

decibels. Fifteen decibels is an extremely low-level. It’s very difficult even to achieve in a laboratory. It takes special microphones

to measure it.

Mr. DUNCAN. And yet, in your study, you found—or in your research on this, you found that in 15 of the—was it 15 of the 23 locations set up specifically to hear aircraft noise, they couldn’t detect any noise over the 30 dBA level? Is that right?

Mr. ALBERTI. That’s right. And that’s actually not my finding,

that’s—if you take a look at attachments four and five of my testimony, those are copied right out of the National Park Service re-
21

port. The NPS—these were people who were contracted by NPS to

go and make those measurements.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Harrison, you say in your statement that you

were one of the ones who came up with the original concept or idea

of protecting natural quiet as a separate resource.

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir.

Mr. DUNCAN. And would you consider a level of 30 dBA natural

quiet?

Mr. HARRISON. For all practical purposes, yes, sir, I would. The

reason for this is that the hearing mechanism is very, very sensitive. It’s truly an engineering marvel, our hearing mechanism.

Equally important, to the loudness of the aircraft is the loudness

of what I’ve called self noise at the listener’s ear. And the very

lightest breeze, just breathing—and in the Grand Canyon, you’re

doing plenty of breathing when you’re going up and down there—

will mask the aircraft sound.

My big quarrel is not with the data. The guys that got the data—

I know them all; I’ve worked with them; and I agree that the data

is excellent. It’s the use of the data and that the Park Service just

will not consider self noise, background noise, and what is technically known as masking in a definition of natural quiet. They say

in their report that natural is compromised when a sound can be

heard. That simply is not true. Natural quiet is only compromised

when a sound is heard.

Mr. DUNCAN. Superintendent Arnberger, how many complaints—

Arnberger, how many complaints are you getting now about aircraft noise?

Mr. ARNBERGER. In the last 2 years, we have received somewhere

right around 70 to 78 complaints. I think I testified to that in St.

George last year. I would want to amplify on that to say that, while

complaints may in fact be statistically low in terms of the numbers

of people that actually take the time to write a complaint, we obviously don’t manage the resources of the national parks exclusively

on the basis of complaints.

Mr. DUNCAN. I’m amazed, though, because there’s been so much

attention to this issue that people haven’t even generated more

complaints than that. I mean, you’ve got what 5 million visitors out

there now. Is that right?

Mr. ARNBERGER. That’s correct, but you also have to realize that

about 95 percent of those visitors are, in fact, visiting areas that

are off-limits to aircraft.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well that was going to be my next point. Much of

the park is already off-limits to aircraft. Is that correct? I think I

was told——

Mr. ARNBERGER. Well, the park is very highly sectored and divided up into corridors and so forth. But the vast majority of the

people that visit Grand Canyon National Park arrive by bus or by

automobile and spend time in the Grand Canyon Village or on the

North Rim. Those particular areas, in fact, are off-limits to aircraft

and that aircraft is, in fact, transiting through other areas. Those

other areas are where back-country users and river users are visiting. Those people have to go through a significant permitting

process and a selection process to get that experience because of

the need to protect that type of wild——
22

Mr. DUNCAN. But aircraft aren’t allowed over those areas.

Mr. ARNBERGER. Yes, sir, they are.

Mr. DUNCAN. And what percentage of the park are aircraft allowed over at this time?

Mr. ARNBERGER. Right now, 45—well, right now, I believe it’s 45

percent—if I could explain it to you this way. And the reason why

I have to explain it to you this way is it’s not where the aircraft

is there, it’s whether the sound of aircraft is there. And, right now,

approximately 45—30 to 45 percent, depending on the time that

we’re talking about here, in fact, experiences some form of quiet

that meets the goal.

Mr. DUNCAN. But the most intrusive aircraft noise at this time

really is helicopters sent by the National Park Service down into

the park to pick up injured hikers, aren’t——

Mr. ARNBERGER. No, I—sorry, I would not agree with you on

that.

Mr. DUNCAN. You disagree with that. But those are the only aircraft that are allowed directly——

Mr. ARNBERGER. I will admit to you that the National Park Services uses an aircraft to save 487 people per year.

Mr. DUNCAN. Yes, and I’m sure not complaining about that.

That’s a very good——

Mr. ARNBERGER. All of these are medics. But let me make another point about that. The National Park Service went out and

spent a lot of money to, in fact, acquire the first quiet helicopter

in use on public lands. It’s called the Notard and—the Notel rotor.

And we believe that we have to make an effort in this particular

effort as well. And I’m proud of that effort. And I think all of you

are proud of that effort because, in fact, you helped us to get there

as well.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Harrison, I notice you say—I was interested in

this—I was—in your statement, you say: I was troubled by my visits to national parks. A meeting—in Hawaii, a meeting with the

Park employees was arranged at their request. They wanted to put

in front of me their concerns about how the noise of helicopter overflights was distressing them, the employees. They wanted to be

sure I knew that—what an unbearable racket they were forced to

put up with. When I queried them about the effects on wildlife,

about visitor complaints, the compromise to the safety caused by

these helicopter overflights, little or no concrete information was

forthcoming, merely a reaffirmation that the biggest problem was

the effect on the Park employees.

I have a feeling that a lot of this is coming from Park employees

and people who are really the most extreme of the extremists on

this issue. Because if it wasn’t, I mean, it’s been said that people

who live near airports develop almost superhuman hearing. And

it’s amazing to me that people who are sent out to hear these

noises can’t even hear these noises to a degree higher than what

we’ve heard. I’m about to lose my voice and my time’s up, so I

thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Shadegg.

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find this testimony

fascinating and I quite frankly am not sure where to begin. I want
23

to begin with one clarification, Superintendent Arnberger. I

thought I heard it reported just a few moments ago that in 95 percent of the park, the Park Service has already acknowledged that

natural quiet, as defined by the Park, has been achieved. Isn’t that

what you said?

Mr. ARNBERGER. Relative—no, that’s not what I said.

Mr. SHADEGG. OK. Please correct me so I understand.

Mr. ARNBERGER. OK. What I was saying was that in the developed areas of the park, aircraft noise has been specifically routed

away from those areas so that aircraft noise is not part of the mix

of the noises that you hear in those areas. But to say that natural

quiet has been achieved down—right in the middle of the Village

for the broad association of natural quiet, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying, you’re not hearing aircraft there because, in fact,

the aircraft have been moved away from that particular area.

Mr. SHADEGG. Maybe we don’t have time to get the answer to

this, but I then understood you to say—maybe I was mistaken.

Maybe it was Mr. Duncan who said that the report says natural

quiet’s been achieved in 95 percent of the park. And I believe he

did say that. Then you said, no, you can perceive aircraft noise—

or aircraft noise has been removed from 35 to 40 percent of the

park. And I find a conflict there which I guess we’ll just have to

leave for another time. Perhaps you can clarify it in writing afterward.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. SHADEGG. As I listen here, I hear a split between what is a

reasonable definition of natural quiet and what is an unreasonable

definition of natural quiet. As I heard the testimony, it was that

the experts here are saying reasonable definition of natural quiet

is somewhere around 30 decibels, I think, and that you have set

a standard at something closer to 15 or 17 decibels. I know your

expert isn’t here, but——

Mr. ARNBERGER. Well, let me take that. Let me take a try at it.

Mr. SHADEGG. Please.

Mr. ARNBERGER. First of all, the ambient levels of sound in the

Grand Canyon are some of the lowest threshold types of sounds

that are there. And the Grand Canyon is like a giant ear. Some of

the quietest of the quietest that you could ever hear. In fact, it is

quieter than you suburban street. It can be heard there.

Our particular position is that the ambient levels—and that’s

measurable and we were able to do that and I understand that

there are experts that, in fact, disagree with those levels—were, in

fact, made. And we increased those by three decibel points on top

of that. I think what’s important about that is two things, and I

think what’s important and it was upheld in the Appeals Court,

and that, in fact, the definition of natural quiet and the definition

of the goal of restoration is in fact a reasonable articulation of the

agency. In fact, it’s a reasonable goal. And that, in fact, a threeplus-the-ambient is a reasonable level.

Now, in terms of solving some of the other factual bases that

have come up here about sound attenuation and so forth, some of

those same questions, I must admit before you, have been from this

agency, the National Park Service, to the FAA, relative to the use
24

of the INM model. In fact, a helicopter speed at 160 miles an hour,

I believe, is not something that we have espoused.

Yes, we differ on such things as a 24-hour day. But there are no

tour helicopters giving tours at night. The 12-hour day for tour

flight and impacts on the visitor is a 12-hour day, not a 24-hour

day.

So, yes, there are some differences such as that.

Mr. SHADEGG. I’m not expert, but I went hiking with my son

last—weekend before last and I was amazed at—and this has been

true on every backpack trip I’ve taken—I’m amazed at how little

you can hear or sense of the natural environment when you’re hiking. Now, I grant you, there are other times. I don’t want to run

out of time.

I take it, you do not agree that, SFAR 50–2 has restored natural

quiet. Are you proposing to go further? And can you give me a

short answer? They’re going to cutoff my time.

Mr. ARNBERGER. The report to Congress clearly stated—and

that’s the issue at hand here—that, in fact, SFAR 50–2 has not restored natural quiet to the Grand Canyon National Park. And that,

in fact, further steps must be taken. And that’s the process that

we’re involved in now, is the further steps to find a reasonable—

some reasonable rulemaking actions that, in fact, provide for the

substantial restoration of natural quiet.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Harrison, do you agree further steps need to

be taken?

Mr. HARRISON. No, sir, it’s clear to me that the Park Service has

grossly overstated their case and it’s clear to me that SFAR 50–2

has substantially restored the natural quiet. And, if I may, just before the red light goes off, there seems to be a tendency, not

amongst the agency, but amongst the environmental community, to

tar us all with the brush of anti-environment if we espouse helicopters, if we espouse motorized transportation.

I have spent my professional life silencing the off-road vehicles.

I have made measurements of every kind of off-road vehicle you

can imagine. I have developed silencing systems for the Forest

Service.

Everybody on this panel is a hard-core environmentalist. Everyone of us. And it as important to us to keep things as quiet in the

natural—in our wildernesses—excuse me; I’m getting excited—and

our national parks as we possibly can. But it is counterproductive

to keep forcing more and more and more upon the sources: the

bikers, the pilots, the tour industry. Because what happens then is

we can’t continue to make our vehicles quieter. So I think it is time

to call a moratorium on anything further and let the industry catch

up with what has been required.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Alberti, do you think further steps need to be

taken?

Mr. ALBERTI. Well, actually, I would underline what Superintendent Arnberger stated and actually Mr. Harrison observed

also that let’s do study the methodology. The NODSS program has

not been field-validated. He was good enough to acknowledge. But

let’s don’t make policy until we’ve got it figured out.

Mr. SHADEGG. So you would say no further steps now?

Mr. ALBERTI. That’s correct.
25

Mr. SHADEGG. OK. Dr.——

Dr. AHUJA. To save time, I’ll echo the sentiments of both Mr.

Alberti and Mr. Harrison.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Halvorson, I was fascinated by your appeal for

incentives to achieve quiet. I guess, like my friend Mr.

Faleomavaega—Congressman Wayne, that in this incredibly scientific world, we can’t make more progress and I think you made

an appeal to us that we could make more progress if the standards

from the Park were clear and if the quote, unquote, ‘‘incentives’’

were there for you to do that.

Could you expand on that and explain to me what incentives

would work? Is it a part of—OK, set—knowing what the standard

is so you know if you spend the money, you will have achieved it?

Or is it financial incentive that you’re looking for?

Mr. HALVORSON. Well, I think it’s both. If we have the incentives

to know that if we achieve a certain level of sound reduction that

we could get some—either some opportunities to fly in certain

areas or we—possibly tax benefits. We pay $25 every time we fly

over the park. My company paid this year close to $1 million just

to fly over the park. In addition to that, we pay a fuel tax; we pay

airport taxes. It’s an incredible cost to us. To put a quiet aircraft

out there, whether it’s an airplane or a helicopter, is going to cost

hundreds of thousands of dollars for each vehicle.

If we could have some relief, say, in the park tax that we pay, the $25 every time we fly across the border. If that could be applied

against some other taxes or excise tax—10 percent per passenger—

or fuel taxes or applied against the other taxes we pay, that would

be a great incentive.

And, you know, I think that this tax in the first place is an unfair tax, because we’re the only thing that doesn’t require a rest

room, doesn’t require a road, takes none of the services of the Park

Service. We are not averse to paying it to the Park Service if it can

help their programs, but if we could get some relief, if we have

quiet aircraft, it would be a great incentive for this industry, I can

assure you of that. There would be a scramble to get quiet aircraft.

Mr. SHADEGG. I want to conclude just with a statement—and it’s

going to include a perhaps off-the-wall thought. I am at times mystified by our inability—public agencies and the Congress and the

Nation—to strike a balance in these areas. And I at times have little patience for and am upset by people who are absolutists, who

say it absolutely has to be 1,000 percent my way or no way.

And sometimes there are those who I think take that position

and do it regardless. That is to say, if they want to enjoy the park

in an absolute pristine fashion, I am willing to work very hard to

make that possible to the greatest extent possible. But there comes

a point where you have to draw the line and say that shouldn’t

deny others their right to enjoy the park at all.

And yet there are those who say, well, I don’t want motors

banned sometimes. I want motors banned all the time, forever and

ever and ever. I don’t want airplane noise diminished or restricted

to areas, I want airplane noise gone forever and ever.

And there are so many people that I represent who fall into a

different category, who cannot afford the back-country experience,

who cannot physically make themselves available. Maybe it took
26

them a lifetime to save the money to be able to take a vacation in

the Grand Canyon National Park and they are simply too old and

too physically unfit to have the pristine experience.

I want to throw a thought out. I think the balance is what we

have to achieve and I think we ought to open our minds to how

we achieve it. And I think that we ought to say to anybody who

comes in and says, No, it’s my way and nobody’s else’s way no matter what. I think we ought to just not listen to those people, because they’re not being fair.

In that regard, I want to ask a question. And I’m going to ask

it about motorized raft trips also, later. Does anybody—has anybody ever given a thought to saying, OK, given that we have different groups of people. The vast majority, quite frankly, want to

enjoy the park riding on your buses, so they’re not going to get 15

decibels. It isn’t going to happen. The vast majority, quite frankly,

you said, Superintendent Arnberger, that come by bus or car, I

think, a huge number come by airplane. So they’re creating noise

as they’re coming in.

But one other thought that occurs to me—and I don’t know if

you’ve ever thought about it—in striking a balance, did anybody

ever consider taking a 2- or 3-day window out of every 2 weeks or

whatever it might be—I’m just positing that as a hypothetical.

Maybe that’s too much; maybe that’s too little—and saying: OK,

during these days, we’re going to say noise is dramatically restricted, way below what it currently is now. But during the rest

of the time, it’s going to be what it is now or maybe a little above

what it is.

I just think it’s so important for us to strike a balance and that

we cannot let the absolutists cut everybody else out. And that’s just

a rhetorical question. I’m going to raise the question about motorized rafts. And I will tell you, the notion that we should never,

ever, ever allow a motorized raft simply is inconsistent with the attitudes of the American people and their ability to use the park in

a certain fashion.

Why doesn’t anybody talk about taking 1 month a year or 2

weeks, two times a year, whatever it is, and saying, OK, here’s a

window. We’re going to let those who want to raft without a motor

and without knowing there’s not a motor on their raft, but not a

motor on the raft in front of them or behind them, and have that

be the time period when there are no motors. But for the rest of

time, let the rest of the world enjoy the canyon and the river with

a motor. I don’t know why we can’t use some of those practical aspects, except that some people say, No, nobody, my way or no way.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Mr. Arnberger, it’s come to the attention of the Committee that there was a couple of groups hired to

do this study and eventually came back and said that they had

achieved quietness, natural quietness. And that they were rejected

by the Park Service—maybe this was before your time; I don’t

know—they were rejected by the Park Service by the pressure of

the environmental community until they found someone to do the

study which would say that natural quietness had not been

achieved. Have you ever heard that?

Mr. ARNBERGER. I have absolutely no knowledge of any of that.
27

Mr. HANSEN. Was there anybody that was——

Mr. ARNBERGER. I will certainly carry your question and let me

get a reply back to you about the selection process or whatever of

the contractors for the study. I have no—absolutely no personal

knowledge of any of that.

Mr. HANSEN. To your knowledge, was there any firms, groups, or

organizations, engineering firms that were hired and then rejected

before the study was done?

Mr. ARNBERGER. To my knowledge, none. But I will check into

that.

Mr. HANSEN. Would you mind looking into that?

Mr. ARNBERGER. Yes, sir, I will.

Mr. HANSEN. And give us an answer and give us the names and

the reasons that they were rejected, if that is the case?

Mr. ARNBERGER. I sure will.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. I was part of this bill when it went through. I was

a past pilot myself and one who has repented from flying down the

middle of the Grand Canyon in a Piper Super Cub. But, as I recall

the bill—and I have it here in front of me—which is now Public

Law 100–91, ‘‘the study shall distinguish between the impacts

caused by sightseeing aircraft, military aircraft, commercial aviation, general aviation, and other forms of aircraft which affect

these units.’’ Did the study do that? I—we haven’t been able to put

our hand on the distinction that the study was supposed to make,

but we don’t see it in front of us.

Mr. ARNBERGER. The distinction of also looking at military and

commercial flights as well. Is that——

Mr. HANSEN. It specifies all the general aviation——

Mr. ARNBERGER. That’s right.

Mr. HANSEN. That would include helicopters under other forms

of aviation, it says.

Mr. ARNBERGER. I believe the decision to focus the discussions of

the report to Congress in on the tour industry was as a result of

some of the history of the issue, I think, up to that point in time,

including a tragic mid-air accident and so forth you mentioned in

the 1975 legislation and so forth. That the focus of the efforts of

restoration of natural quiet was, in fact, to center around the air

tour industry.

And I was not the one that made that decision to implement that

report to Congress. I was the one that inherited it. But that’s what

I believe is the reason, the rationale, for, in fact, focusing on that

one sector of the issue.

Mr. HANSEN. I can understand your statement, but that’s not

what the law says. The law says that you will make a distinction

between all of these and I’m a little disturbed that’s in not in the

report.

I guess the most powerful people in Congress are those who interpret the law after we finish it, that kid right out of law school

who writes the regulation has become the most important guy

around this place. That’s why we have report language and legislative intent. When I was speaker of the house in the State of Utah,

I insisted upon about a page of legislative intent for every para-
28

graph in every law because I was tired of getting sued on these

things.

Anyway, you allow helicopters to go down into the canyon to take

out people who are injured or people off a raft trip. Is that right?

Mr. ARNBERGER. These—they are public safety rescue missions

and, yes, sir, we do—we have to have that capacity.

Mr. HANSEN. It is in the law. I put it there. And it was here before us. And, also, when a raft trip is concluded down by what do

they call that——

Mr. ARNBERGER. Whitmore Wash.

Mr. HANSEN. That is also allowed, is that correct?

Mr. ARNBERGER. Yes, sir. That’s a special provision there that

basically says a direct flight to pick up those clients. And it’s not

tour flight, but a direct flight to pick up those clients at Whitmore

Wash is permitted there at that location.

Mr. HANSEN. The law also says that they can make a direct

flight across the canyon. Is that right?

Mr. ARNBERGER. There at that location? I mean, they are picking

up clients on the south bank of the river, on the Walapai lands and

they are coming off the north side of the canyon. So, in effect, they

are flying across that inner canyon corridor right there and landing.

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, subheading (c)(1) says, ‘‘which fly’’—talking

about helicopters—‘‘a direct route between a point on the north rim

outside the Grand Canyon Park and locations to the Indian reservations and,’’—the thing we talked about earlier. So that’s allowed, is that right?

Mr. ARNBERGER. Yes, sir.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Shadegg said he didn’t want to bring up the

issue of rafts on the river. But in 1972, there was a group of environmentalists who were trying their best to get motors off the

river. Later on Senator Hatch put some language in that one, we

have discovered that. And that’s come before this Committee periodically, ever year or so someone brings it up.

Mercury did a UGST study on that. They came to this Committee and pointed out that the exhaust went in the water and all

that kind of stuff. And they went down the river and took, actually,

acoustical things all the way along with various river runners.

Let me turn to our two experts on sound there. What have you

heard—or you’ve concentrated on aircraft. What about other forms

that break into silence? Either one of you want to respond to that?

Mr. HARRISON. Well, I’m probably the one who’s done the broadest of the experts. And, as I’m sure the chairman knows, an expert

is an ordinary guy that’s 50 miles from home with a briefcase. But

I think of the three of us, probably I’m the one who has done the

most work on boat noise. And what I have—although I have not

done work specifically in the Grand Canyon—what I have found is

that technological measures are very effective on both inboard and

outboard boats and that, with careful engineering, either an inboard or an outboard can be made so quiet that the loudest source

of noise from the boat is the water slapping the hull and the motor

becomes no longer an issue.

Mr. HANSEN. In your expert opinion, would you state that the

outboard motors, which are used on the Grand Canyon, do or do
29

not create a disturbance as far as silence? What would be your

opinion?

Mr. HARRISON. I think probably currently the currently used outboard motors certainly some of them do create a disturbance. But

I think that’s not a large percentage of them. And I think certainly

that, with just a little regulatory help, that situation could be

greatly ameliorated.

Mr. ARNBERGER. Mr. Chairman, could I give you some——

Mr. HANSEN. Have you ever run the Grand Canyon yourself, Mr.

Harrison?

Mr. HARRISON. Not in a motorboat, no.

Mr. HANSEN. So you’re speaking not as one who has been there

and listened to it, but more of your curbstone opinion, is that right?

Mr. HARRISON. Well, yes. I have made maybe 10,000 boat noise

measurements in my life, but never in the Grand Canyon.

Mr. HANSEN. I see. Kind of a noisy canyon. A lot of water goes

down that. Doesn’t it, Mr. Superintendent?

Mr. HARRISON. That’s exactly my point, that the background

sound is such that it is very much a masking sound and certainly

the boat noise is not any problem remote from the people who are

right there in the canyon.

Mr. HANSEN. I perhaps have something to add. In my own opinion, having run it three times, you’d have to have the ears of a Doberman pinscher, but go ahead.

Mr. ARNBERGER. I have, perhaps, some real-time information and

it ought to come out in the next panel. In fact, this issue of natural

quiet and trying to reduce noise and so forth is not just an aircraft

it is a metropolitan issue here as well, with the sound of sirens.

But the Grand Canyon Outfitters Association that represents the

professional out there have taken extraordinary steps forward,

similar to what Elling Halvorson has made and others, to, in fact,

quiet down engines. And, in fact, the Honda 4-cycle engine that is

being used by a good number of those folks right now and by the

National Park Service down there is contributing to a restoration

of natural quiet from that particular sector. And it is an extraordinary difference between a Mercury 2-cycle and a Honda 4-cycle

engine to where now the guides can stand in the back and talk in

normal voices to their clients as opposed to, in the past, having to

wear earmuffs.

So the endeavor to, in fact, restore that type of an environment,

to limit the impacts of noise is a widespread one and there is some

levels of success occurring on the river itself with the concessionaires. And I would assume that some of that will come out in

the next panel.

Mr. HANSEN. Let me just ask one more question of our engineers

here. We’ve also—this Committee has had people complain about

noises in Yellowstone, Glacier, Yosemite because of motorcycles

going through. Go ahead.

Mr. HARRISON. A very serious problem, Mr. Chairman. The problem does have some parallels and it’s interesting that you should

bring this up because we had a spirited discussion, the four of us—

Elling and the other two engineers—about just this subject this

morning.
30

The problem that occurs with motorcycles and, to some extent,

snowmobiles—and, again, I have made probably tens of thousands

of measurements of these vehicles—is that, while the bikes and the

snowmobiles, when they leave the manufacturers’ hands are very

quiet—as a matter of fact, snowmobiles are quieter than any other

vehicle in normal use—the fact that a certain percentage of the

people that use them modify them, if, for no other reason, because

they like the loud sound, is the contributor or the main contributor.

Motorcycles are very quiet. Snowmobiles are extremely quiet.

There is always downward pressure on the manufacturers of these

vehicles to make the bikes and snowmobiles quieter. And this is

counterproductive because what it does is it makes them run worse

and then the guys take the mufflers off because they want the

bikes to run.

The Forest Service has been very successful—and I will take

some credit for their success—in a draconian program of noise enforcement. There’s a test method that can be run very quickly on

motorcycles and if you don’t meet it, you don’t ride. Load it up,

buddy, we’re not letting you ride here. And, more importantly, the

users themselves have gotten on this bandwagon and have put a

lot of pressure on their colleagues to keep the stock mufflers on the

bikes.

So I can’t tell you with a straight face that we have the problem

solved, but I can tell you that the big problem is not the original

equipment, but the manufact—but the modifications.

Mr. HANSEN. And if, you know, if I had my druthers, very personally, the one that I would like to tone down is the kid in the

car that turns his stereo up so loud you can hear it five blocks

away.

Mr. HARRISON. This is much more intractable problem.

Mr. HANSEN. That kid is the one I’d like to get to and I don’t how

you do that. Excuse the trivia part of that. Take that out of the

record, will you?

[Laughter.]

The gentleman from American Samoa.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Just another quick question, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. I just wanted to ask Superintendent Arnberger, you

mentioned that National Park Service has contracted with some expert to model—to build this computer noise model. What’s the approximate cost of the National Park Service in doing this?

Mr. ARNBERGER. I believe that the cost of the construction of the

first model that was done by BBN cost us significantly, or somewhere between, $500,000 and $1 million.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And that’s just the first phase, right?

Mr. ARNBERGER. Yes, sir. I think it’s very obvious that at that

first phase, with the report to Congress, that we, in fact, felt that

we had a model that was going to work and the values were good

and we did our work. And as we have moved through this process,

there’s clear indications that both the FAA and the Park Service

to come together, reevaluate the model and some other models, and

see where we need to go further with that.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Wait, let me see if I get this. You’ve al—

you’ve expended $500,000 already only on the first phase as——
31

Mr. ARNBERGER. The first model that—let me see what my col- league here is—yes, $800,000. I knew it was between $500,000 and

$1 million. And what it—that was the first model that was done

for—that was the NODSS model done for the report to Congress.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And this is going to be the computer of all

computers, the model of all models.

Mr. ARNBERGER. No, it’s not the computer. It’s the building, the

construction of the model, which is basically a series of mathematical equations which it works on and then puts out a GIS product of some sort.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And—could I ask, Mr. Chairman, to submit

for the record? We would like—in fairness to the National Park

Service this morning, we would like to have you submit for the

record your expert submission to state whatever—what you consider to be, as a different understanding of the science, to compare

to our friends here who are testifying this morning. Is that OK

with you?

Mr. ARNBERGER. I would be very pleased to do that.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Now, this money, this $800,000 computer or

whatever model that you’re doing here, are we looking at something that is going to be finally built in a 10-month period or——

Mr. ARNBERGER. I think that the important thing is that we’re

going to pull together a panel of people to in fact look at the existing models out there. Not only this model, but, in fact, the NODSS

model, the INM model. In fact, we know that the Air Force has a

model that is of some substance and look at what pieces we can

use and keep and so forth. But for me to be able to make a—to give

you a clear approximation of when and how much it’s going to cost,

I think that that’s why we need to have this panel of experts and

so forth to help us get there.

I would tell you that we hope to be pulling this particular endeavor together in the next 2 to 3 months. We do not have time

to waste on this particular endeavor. And, while we’re looking for

accuracy and the best thing possible, I think we have to be very

careful about recreating the atom here. I think there is some sense

that there are experts. There is good information. Now let’s get

them together and let’s solve this.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Now this is all in the purpose of conforming

to the Public Law 100–91?

Mr. ARNBERGER. Yes, sir, it is. It’s basically in the mid-life stages

of the regulatory effort to, in fact, meet the letter of the law and

the regulatory process with the FAA to, in fact, repopulate the air

space in some fashion and manage that air space in some fashion.

To allow air tourists to continue and also to meet the goal of the

restoration of natural quiet.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And do you feel that the laws that passed

in the 100th Congress, the fact that we now have 5 million visitors

in the canyon, do you think there’s going to have to be some

changes in the law? I mean, I’m a little disturbed by this and the

fact that what it was 10 years ago is no longer the situation now.

Mr. ARNBERGER. Well, it’s not only the visitors, but in those 10

years the air tour industry has doubled, has increased over 100

percent. Which is a contributory to some of the degree of the prob-
32

lems. I don’t think that that’s going to require a rearticulation of

the law. I think it’s going to take more intense effort to, with the

FAA and the people involved, to solve the problem.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.

Arnberger.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Mr. Arnberger, a few last questions and

we’ll let this panel go. You state in your testimony that the recent

Court of Appeals decision declared that it is not unreasonable to

use acoustical data to determine the degree of natural quiet. However, assessing natural quiet should not be, quote, ‘‘one or the

other.’’ That is, all assessed by acoustical measurements or all assessed by visitors complaints. The question is this: Do you believe

it is also reasonable to include visitor complaints and surveys along

with acoustical data as significant parts of assessing natural quiet?

Mr. ARNBERGER. I think that we have done a significant number

of visitor surveys. It’s called dose-response surveys, that in fact is

part of the mix, yes, it’s part of the mix of deciding to what measure we are going to be able to achieve the substantial restoration

of natural quiet. I think the acoustic standard is the standard that

we are going to stay with to, in fact, make that decision. But, I

think we will be very, very seriously considering all of the dose-response studies that are going to be a part of that mix.

Mr. HANSEN. Does it—to what extent do you put any credence or

weight to the idea of there are certain people who are limited in

time, who are handicapped, who can only see the park by aviation

means?

Mr. ARNBERGER. I put credence to the fact of an air tour industry

at Grand Canyon is an important part of the mix in the spectrum

of visitor activities there. We are not intent on dismantling or

eliminating the air tour industry from Grand Canyon. We are simply trying to strike that balance, as Mr. Shadegg brought out the

difficulties of finding those places in there is what my life is.

Mr. HANSEN. Do you give equal weight to the people in aircraft

as people in cars who have come to the north rim or the south rim?

Mr. ARNBERGER. I think we give equal weight in terms of evaluating all of the wide spectrum of activities. I think it’s important

to note that, of the 800,000-some people that visit the canyon by

air tours, 92 percent of those people also come into the canyon by

bus or by car. So, in fact, it is not just an exclusive type of thing

of flying over the canyon and leaving. Those people land in

Tusayan or else they were there in the park, went out for the air

tour. So they leave not only a footprint of some sort through the

air, as transitory as it might be, but they also leave one on the

ground.

Mr. HANSEN. OK. I’ll dismiss—I was going to turn to you, Mr.

Hayworth, to give an opening statement or whatever you wanted

to do, but I was going to dismiss this committee, but maybe you

have something you——

Mr. HAYWORTH. I—just one question that arises, and I apologize

for being late and perhaps it’s been covered——

Mr. HANSEN. Well, we’ll turn the time to you to use as you see

fit.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me just ask

this question first and then I’ll have a couple of other statements.
33

First, Mr. Arnberger, and the rest of the panel, can you put down

or offer some empirical data as to the number of disabled citizens

who visit the park, especially via air tour? Because it seems to be

a unique way to see the wonders. Do we have any empirical data

on that information?

Mr. ARNBERGER. I don’t have any data. I—you know, and the

way I would answer that is that the way for citizens who are impaired to see the park is not limited to what might be—to only aircraft. In fact, there are wide, wide spectrum of opportunities for

those citizens to, in fact, enjoy that canyon and to see that canyon.

And then, second, I would say that I’m sure there are a wide number of impaired citizens that do use aircraft, but that’s not the only

exclusive way to enjoy that canyon.

Mr. HAYWORTH. No, indeed. But I think we would all agree

today, even as we take a look at the different aspects of this decision, having had the privilege of seeing the canyon by air, in addition to being on foot, and the magnificent wonder that compromise

that great national park, I think it’s vitally important that we don’t

move to abridge anyone’s rights to enjoy it. And especially those

who may find the going somewhat challenging on foot or by vehicle.

Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any other questions for this panel if

we want to move along. I do have some other statements if you

would like to have them now.

Mr. HANSEN. Do you have an opening statement that you would

like to give at this time?

STATEMENT OF HON. J. D. HAYWORTH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Mr. HAYWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just—I simply want

to thank everyone for taking time to be here. And, as we say, Arizona is the Grand Canyon State. Of that, we are proud. And that’s

why you see three of us here, including my colleague who still

serves on the Resources Committee, Mr. Shadegg, from the fourth

district.

Just some important points that I think we need to make today.

First of all, I do not believe that wilderness designation—I don’t believe wilderness designation will add any further protections to the

park. It’s already receiving protected status because of its affiliation with the National Park Service. I believe wilderness designation will make the park less accessible to certain people and that’s

not only dealing with air travel here. I just really think we have

to ask this question of ourselves today: Should any one segment of

society be forbidden to enter a national park that their taxes

helped finance?

I also believe the wilderness designation may substantially increase the cost of the Grand Canyon experience. I have heard some

talk that there are some at the Interior Department who try to rationalize this by saying, Well, a family of four may go to

Disneyland or Disney World and it’ll cost them $100. I would point

out for the record: The taxpayers don’t finance Mickey Mouse and

Donald Duck, at least not to my knowledge. And we’re not talking

about using these natural wonders that exist in our society as some

sort of natural amusement park. These are special, incredible natu-
34

ral wonders and, again, I think we have to ask: Should the American people be priced out of a visit to this wonder of the world?

People in the surrounding areas, private outfitters and others,

should be involved in this public process and, indeed, this process

should be open and fair and everyone’s views, but especially the

views of those who have committed no crime, but simply been involved in legitimate economic interchange, should be seriously considered when deciding the future status of this great park.

And, again, I want to thank everyone for coming to testify, but

I’d be remiss if I didn’t also say that Mark Grisham, who’s the executive director of the Grand Canyon Outfitters Association, is

here. He is from the great sixth district, up in Flagstaff. We appreciate that as we appreciate all who join us here today. And I see

my good friend Bob Lynch back there in one of the rows too.

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence. To the Ranking Member, my good friend from Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega, we

thank you. And to all who have come here to testify today, we appreciate your efforts.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Hayworth. We’ll turn to Mr. Shadegg for two final questions. We’re going to run out of time in a little

while and we’ve got one more complete panel to go here, so, Mr.

Shadegg, we’ll turn to you.

Mr. SHADEGG. I just want to conclude one quick point. Superintendent Arnberger, I believe that I saw you nodding your head

when Mr. Alberti indicated that he thought, before further restrictions were put on flights and further regulations driving down the

amount of noise which is allowed or the area which is restricted,

as expanded, that we should verify the studies that have been done

and the scientific analyses that is being conducted. And I thought

I saw you nodding your head. And I want to find out if you agree

that, before further restrictions, we should kind of double check

these studies and get agreement amongst the scientists.

Mr. ARNBERGER. My nodding of my head was for one sector of his

comments. And that is that we need verification. Now, I believe

that there are—that concurrently, within the regulatory process, as

we’re moving forward—right now we are moving forward in a route

structure, as an example. I believe that, in fact, a route structure,

we can move forward on that.

But I believe, as we start getting into another requirement of the

regulation, a noise management plan, which is—a way to explain

that is how we populate those skies and the routes with planes and

how many they can there and when they can be there—that, in

fact, we’re going to have to have a model that meets the test, the

scientific test, and meets—and has the capacity to, in fact, do that.

So I don’t want to be so precise as to say we should stop everything

until such time as we get the model. And I want to say very clearly

that we see the importance of that model and we’re moving very

quickly on that.

But to stop everything I don’t think that we need to. I think that

we need to move through this in a concurrent basis. And there are

going to be some areas that are going to be dependent upon model

validation. Those areas are going to come to a stop and there’s

going to be some areas that, perhaps, don’t.
35

Mr. SHADEGG. So, if I understood that correctly, you agree with

me in part and you disagree with me in part. You don’t want to

stop doing anything. But you agree that, before we do anything

dramatic, perhaps it would be good to try to obtain agreement on

the science.

Mr. ARNBERGER. I think that that’s been a significant blip on the

radar screen of both the FAA and the National Park Service and

we’re moving in that direction.

Mr. SHADEGG. I hope you will commit to that and I would implore you that it is in everybody’s interest for there to be a common

agreement on the scientific basis. Because then we’ll all have—and

we’ll all, I mean, everybody that has a right to use the park and

uses the park—will have greater confidence in whatever levels are

then established, based on that science. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. We appreciate this committee and I appreciate your patience. You gave good answers and we would like

to have the opportunity to write further questions to you if we have

them. Would that be all right? And we appreciate your answers.

Thank you so much.

Superintendent, I think you’re on for the next too, aren’t you?

Mr. ARNBERGER. Yes, sir, I’m here for the duration.

Mr. HANSEN. All right. Appreciate it. And you’re accompanied by

David Haskell?

Mr. ARNBERGER. He’s not here.

Mr. HANSEN. Senior scientist, Grand Canyon National Park; Robert S. Lynch, chairman of the board, Central Arizona Project; Mark

Grisham, executive director, Grand Canyon River Outfit; Brian

Merrill, chief of operations, Western Rivers Expeditions; and William C. Reffalt, The Wilderness Society and The Grand Canyon

Trust. Would these folks please come up?

Have we got you all in the right place? Superintendent

Arnberger, do you want to do another opening statement?

STATEMENT OF ROBERT ARNBERGER, SUPERINTENDENT,

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK

Mr. ARNBERGER. Well, I was asked today to separate them into

the two areas of concern so I——

Mr. HANSEN. All right. All right. We’re going to run out of time

on the use of this room, so we’re going to try to hold everybody to

5 minutes, including members and panel. If you could possibly,

we’d really appreciate it. Go ahead.

Mr. ARNBERGER. The draft wilderness management plan for

Grand Canyon National Park was released for public comment in

June, 1998. And the comment period ended on September 15, 1998.

And that draft plan essentially calls for the National Park Service

to manage 1,109,257 acres of proposed wilderness and some 29,000

acres of potential wilderness.

I think that, in the interests of time, we’ll say that that draft

plan is an internal operational management plan that we believe

represents the proposal, the wilderness proposal, made by the National Park Service in 1980. And it is focused most especially on

some of the more management-focus operations of the National

Park Service, including what we call a minimal tool to assure that,
36

in fact, we’re meeting the intent of the Wilderness Act, and so

forth.

And, in the interest of time, you have the statement. And with

at least several members of the panel there, including yourself,

we’ve had some good discussion on these things, so we probably

ought to get along and then provide for that opportunity.

Mr. HANSEN. Done?

Mr. ARNBERGER. That’s it.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you so much. Mr. Lynch, we’ll turn to you,

sir.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. LYNCH, CHAIRMAN OF THE

BOARD, CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT ASSOCIATION

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. The thing that’s missing from Mr. Arnberger’s statement

that I’d like to see is a commitment to do an environmental impact

statement to corral the issues that I think are missing from the

draft plan and from the environmental assessment that accompanies it. Frankly, I think they’ve missed the boat, no pun intended, not only over motorized craft, but over just exactly what

the implications are of the proposal for wilderness.

First of all, this is and has to be—and I don’t think anybody with

a straight face could contradict the fact—that this is a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, the test under NEPA for doing an environmental impact

statement. It’s there. It has to be there. I mean, a first-year law

student would find this and, certainly, the attorneys for the Park

Service have to be advising Mr. Arnberger and the Service that

they are going to have do an EIS.

The EIS process, in my view, if it’s properly handled, will bring

out the issues that are missing now. And let me just mention a few

of them. The issue with regard to water rights. The reason I’m

here. The status of the Wilderness Act, as a tool for claiming reserved water rights, is an open question. It has been litigated over

the years since the Act was originally passed in 1964. There is no

resolve to that, except that 2 weeks ago, the State of Idaho filed

its appeal in a State case that I have referenced in my testimony

in which a trial judge in Idaho said the Wilderness Act is a tool

for reserving—impliedly reserving water. A disastrous consequence

in my view, and one not contemplated by Congress, but, nevertheless, it’s there.

This is an open question. It’s a serious question in Arizona. It’s

a serious question on the Colorado River. It is not analyzed. It is

not discussed. It is not part of this plan. And the Park Service has

sort of stepped in this. I don’t think they understood the depth to

which these issues would come up for them while they were focusing on the narrow aspect of writing a proposal for designating wilderness in physical areas. But when they designated the river corridor as a potential wilderness, they brought themselves into a

whole new world and in one they might not totally understand.

One issue has to do with the water rights implications. And that’s

why I’m here, because, as I said in my testimony, CAP is the last

right on the river and anything that implicates water rights on the

Colorado River we have to be concerned about, and we are.
37

We want to see this analyzed. We want to see it discussed. We

want to have an opportunity to present a case about why this designation should not disturb the Law of the River. And we want not

to have to fight this battle at a later time after a wilderness designation when either the Service or other groups will come in saying, ‘‘I’m sorry, but you don’t have the water supply you used to

think you had.’’ We just can’t afford that in Arizona.

We think that they’ve tripped over some of their own statutes

that you have passed that have given them commands, not just of

the Service, but the Secretary of the Interior. The 1992 Grand Canyon Protection Act mandates a long-term monitoring and research

program. The draft plan says not only—the draft plan admits that

they will have to restrict Park Service use of motorized craft on the

river.

Now if they’re going to restrict them, they’re also going to have

to restrict the researchers who are on the river taking the scientific

measurements. They’re going to have to res—I mean, it’s not just

commercial river runners. There is a mandated plan under the

1992 Act, in section 1805, that will be restricted; there is physical

equipment that may not be usable along the river corridor anymore

if this is designated as a potential wilderness. The equipment

that’s used for remote sensing, scientific measurement, and this research program, which you mandated, is going to be adversely impacted by this designation and that is not analyzed in this plan or

this environmental assessment.

There are mandatory consultation requirements. In 1992, you

put five consultation requirements into the Grand Canyon Protection Act. One of them is specific to the monitoring program. It’s a

command to the Secretary of the Interior, the same Secretary that

Mr. Arnberger answers to, the same program, the same park, not

done. And the plan admits they haven’t consulted with the affected

interests mentioned in the 1992 Act.

The 1992 Act also embellishes on the consultation requirements

in the 1968 Lower Colorado River Basin Project Act. That, too, is

a mandated consultation if there is going to be a potential effect

on the annual operating plan that is mandated by the 1968 Act.

That hasn’t been done.

A brief mention of the Americans For Disabilities Act issues. I

attached some stuff that I recently ran across about a program,

Phoenix Parks and Recreation, and, as it turns out, my wife’s rotary club helps fund disabled people to take river trips. That has

to be analyzed.

There is a statute that you passed, I think in 1986, mandating

that the Park Service provide access to Indian tribes and communities for religious purposes to the park. What’s the impact of the

wilderness designation on that command? It’s not been analyzed.

What about the Hopi salt caves in the upper canyon? What about

the other sites which at least a half a dozen tribes in Arizona and

New Mexico and southern Utah consider to have religious significance surrounding the canyon? Not been analyzed.

This whole approach to NEPA, to me, and whether to do an EIS

is like throwing a—rolling a boulder off a hill and just saying we

won’t worry about what it hits until we see what it hits. Now’s the
38

time to do the analysis. Now’s the time to do the research. Now’s

the time to do the EIS and force these issues out into the open.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lynch may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Lynch. Mr. Grisham.

STATEMENT OF MARK GRISHAM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

GRAND CANYON RIVER OUTFITTERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. GRISHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. Pull that mike close to you, please. Thank you.

Mr. GRISHAM. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,

thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to this oversight hearing today on the Grand Canyon National Park draft wilderness management plan. I’m the executive director of the Grand

Canyon River Outfitters Association, a trade group that represents

each of the 16 licensed, commercial river-running concessionaires

who operate in Grand Canyon National Park. As we have for the

past 2 decades, each year our member companies assist roughly

20,000 people from around the country and from around the world

enjoy a Grand Canyon river adventure.

Grand Canyon’s river outfitters are proud of our industry and its

mission which, in a nutshell, is to make a safe and enjoyable

Grand Canyon river experience available to the broadest sweep of

the American and international traveling publics as possible. To do

this, we offer a diverse range of trip styles. We feel that anyone interested in getting to know the Grand Canyon can find the type of

river trip that will suit them and that they will greatly enjoy and

appreciate.

The age of our patrons ranges from elementary school kids to retirees in their seventies and, yes, even in their eighties. The outdoor experience level varies from highly proficient and experienced

outdoors people to those who have never spent a night under the

stars. This diversity of interest is one of the most powerful things

about the Grand Canyon river experience. These trips are not just

for hardcore outdoor enthusiasts or the wilderness traveling elite

of this country. The power of the experience is attested to eloquently by the fact that completion of our trips by those new to the

outdoors regularly engenders a lifelong appreciation of the natural

world and a recognition of the need to protect special places.

Everyone agrees that the Grand Canyon river experience is a

powerful and precious thing, yet its exact nature, what it is today,

and what it should be tomorrow are things that elude simple definition and spawn heated debate. The instincts of government administrators continue to be for greater and greater control and regulation. At the same time, our experience leads us to conclude that

a wilderness experience is a highly personal thing. We believe that

the citizens of this nation should be treated as thinking adults and

trusted by their government to find their own way to that type of

encounter with the Grand Canyon that best suits their values, temperament, physical limitations, and expectations.

To fully appreciate what is at stake in this debate, it is first helpful to understand what is not at stake. This is not a debate about

protecting unprotected lands. The Grand Canyon is, of course, a na-
39

tional park. It is an intensely managed area, controlled completely

by the National Park Service. As the members of this Committee

know well, that agency’s statutory obligations regarding resource

stewardship are substantial. There is no imminent threat from

which the Grand Canyon must today be saved.

In addition to the many important details that, together, serve

to describe and define the Grand Canyon river experience, there

are two fundamental questions that end up really being just a single question. First is the matter of how broad or how narrow

should the public’s access be to the Grand Canyon river experience.

Is the current level which has essentially been in place now for the

last two decades just about right? Or is it too much or too little?

Second, there is the issue of whether or not to eliminate the historic presence of low-power outboard motors from the river. Managing the Colorado River corridor as wilderness means banning

motors. Is this a good or a bad idea?

To answer that question, we believe one has to understand how

removing motors would impact public access. It is the use of motorized watercraft that makes possible the current level of public access, while, at the same time, satisfying the various National Park

Service resource protection and wilderness visitor experience prescriptions now in place. It simply is not possible to eliminate motorized watercraft from the river without also sharply reducing the

public’s historic access to the Grand Canyon river experience. We

believe that eliminating motors would reduce public access by 50

percent or more from current levels.

The Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association believes that the

river corridor through the park should receive the same treatment

as that given the cross-canyon trail corridor in the draft Grand

Canyon wilderness management plan. It should be classified as a

non-wilderness access corridor. Classifying the river corridor in this

fashion would not mean that anything would then be tolerated on

the river. It is still a national park, heavily regulated by the Park

Service.

The river outfitters are ready, able, and more than willing to sit

down with the National Park Service, all other interested parties,

the public we serve, the members of this Committee, and to engage

in a constructive discussion of how current management of the

river corridor can be improved to even further enhance resource

protection and visitor experience goals. We are unwilling, however,

to lend any support to the notion that motorized use on the Colorado River should be eliminated. We do not believe that the dramatic reduction in public access such management would necessitate—a reduction of 50 percent or more from current levels—is

warranted.

If Grand Canyon National Park officials insist that either the immediate or eventual removal of motors is necessary under existing

wilderness law and/or National Park Service wilderness management guidelines, we believe the time has arrived for this Committee and Congress as a whole to take up and to decide the Grand

Canyon wilderness question once and for all. Thank you very much

for the opportunity to be here today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grisham may be found at end of

hearing.]
40

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Grisham. Mr. Merrill.

STATEMENT OF BRIAN I. MERRILL, CHIEF OF OPERATIONS,

WESTERN RIVERS EXPEDITIONS

Mr. MERRILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the

Subcommittee. My name is Brian Merrill. I’m chief of operations

for Western River Expeditions. Western has been an outfitter in

Grand Canyon since 1959 and under current ownership since 1977.

As an industry, I am proud of the record that we have as protectors of Grand Canyon, as educators about Grand Canyon, and as

lovers of the resource. And so it’s—we are uncomfortable about the

position we’re put in here as being anti-wilderness. Wilderness is

such a romantic concept and without a deep understanding of it,

it’s easy to just support it in a knee-jerk sort of fashion.

But our understanding of it with regard to the river in Grand

Canyon is that it is about access for the American public. If wilderness status is granted to the river, people are going to be shut out

of Grand Canyon. And it is, admittedly, an economic issue for us.

Are we self-interested? Absolutely. But the reason is because people are going to be kept off our trips. That’s why our bottom line

is going to be affected. Tons of people are going to be kept off our

trips.

For us, it represents—it would rep—carried to its logical conclusion, wilderness for the river in Grand Canyon would represent, at

a minimum, a major recapitalization and restructuring of our business. And, for many members of our industry, it would represent

quite simply the death knell. They would go out of business. They

just couldn’t function under extreme wilderness limits.

Our trips—we run two basic trips through Grand Canyon. We

run a 6-day trip down to Whitmore Wash that the chairman mentioned before. People helicopter out of the canyon and then another

group helicopters in and runs a 3-day trip through the bottom end

of the canyon.

If motors were eliminated, the only option would be a minimum

of about a 12- up to a 14-day trip down covering basically the same

portion that our 6-day trip covers now. If helicopters were eliminated, then virtually half of the people who are experiencing Grand

Canyon through our company now would be immediately taken

away. We take approximately 2,000 people on our 6-day trip every

year and an additional 2,000 on the 3-day trip every year. And

those 2,000 on the 3-day would be gone immediately if the helicopters were removed. There are other options that have been proposed: hiking in and out of the canyon, mules. And I won’t go into

the details right now of why those are not viable options, but they

aren’t.

Motorized rafts are currently chosen by 75 percent of all of the

people who go through Grand Canyon. Wilderness would eliminate

that option for them. Motorized rafts provide flexibility in terms of

contacts that are had on the river. One of the main goals of the

managers of these plans is to reduce and manage the number—the

level of contacts that occur between groups in Grand Canyon: How

many times you see other people on the river or see them at attraction sites. The guides of motorized rafts have the ability to accelerate, decelerate. They can control their speed, communicate with
41

other guides on the river, and make sure that these contacts occur

less frequently. Motorized rafts also pass other groups relatively

quickly whereas in a rowing situation, it could take hours to pass

another group and you’re contacting them often down the river.

Ironically, wilderness could lead to more contact with the land.

Currently we, you know, on a 6-day trip we camp five times. If we

had to stretch that out to 12, 13 days, we would be camping 11 or

12 times. And each time you camp, that’s more impact with the

land.

As these levels of contacts would increase without motors, if you

had strictly rowboats, it would take a lot more boats to accomplish

the same level of access. You can’t put as many people in a rowboat

as you can in a motorboat. So if you had that increased level of contact, the next step for the Park is to reduce the level of boats on

the river, therefore reducing access even further.

As Mr. Arnberger so graciously stated, our industry has voluntarily committed to convert to quieter engine technology, not only

four-stroke, there is direct injection technology coming on line.

They are significantly quieter. We’re getting compliments from people who run rowing trips that they can barely hear these boats as

they’re going by now. And we have committed to convert 100 percent by the year 2001, as an industry. Our company will have this

technology on our boats 100 percent by next year, by the 1999 season. We’re also exploring even quieter, cleaner technology that the

ultimate result might be an electric engine on a boat in Grand

Canyon and the industry is very committed to that effort. Hopefully it will work out.

With regard to helicopters, they represent a clean and efficient

way of getting people in and out of the canyon. They provide access

for people who otherwise would not be able to do it. Quite frankly,

our demographics reflect the demographics of the nation. We’re getting older. We’re in less—we’re not as physically fit as we ought to

be.

And, people, this isn’t about parading out the ill and the infirm,

although many of those people access our trips—people who are in

wheelchairs, people that have extreme physical disabilities are

being taken through the Grand Canyon right now. Mr. Lynch mentioned the city of Parks—city of Phoenix Parks and Recreation. We

work closely with that group. We have done so for 5 years to provide access to Grand Canyon. But this is about the average American, 70 years old, 80 years old, someone who’s not in shape. They

cannot hike in and out of Grand Canyon. They can’t spend 12 to

15 days in the canyon. It’s just a barrier that would placed in front

of them, without motors.

To conclude, I believe that we should be about protecting this resource and providing access. It’s the dual mandate of the National

Park Service. We do not take our partnership with the Park Service lightly. As the person who’s in charge of training for our company, I preach it like a religion to our guides. They protect the resource. They interpret the park for the people. They love the people. They love the resource. They practice that religion that I

preach to them with great fervor. And I’ll stand on that record

firmly and proudly. And we shouldn’t be about keeping people from

that experience in Grand Canyon. Thank you.
42

[The prepared statement of Mr. Merrill may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Merrill. If you notice, you look back

on the clock there, there’s two lights that just appeared. We do a

lot of things by lights around here. And that means that we’ve got

a vote in about 9 minutes and that’s about all the time it takes to

get over there. So I would urge the members of the Committee to

run over and vote and come right back and we’ll turn to Mr. Reffalt

at that time. Appreciate your patience, being with us. And we will

take your statement. And then we’ll turn to the members of the

Committee, even I know everyone here has a number of questions.

So it will stand in recess for just a few minutes.

[Recess.]

Mr. HANSEN. [presiding.] Order. I’m sure the members will come

in soon. A lot of discussion going on on the floor regarding our profile issues around here. So they’ll be here, I’m sure.

Mr. Reffalt, could we turn to you, please. I’d hold you awhile, but

we’re going to run out of time for this room, so I’d appreciate if we

could get your testimony on the record. Go ahead.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. REFFALT, THE WILDERNESS

SOCIETY AND THE GRAND CANYON TRUST

Mr. REFFALT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of the

time, I will try to abbreviate my testimony—my written testimony—severely so we can move onto questions.

Mr. Chairman, my name is Bill Reffalt. I am the director of National Parks and Alaska Lands for The Wilderness Society. I sincerely appreciate this opportunity to testify on behalf of our members and The Grand Canyon Trust regarding the Grand Canyon

National Park.

The Grand Canyon is one of the most unique and in many ways

grandest wilderness areas in America. Standing on the rim at

many locations, you can literally see into the heart of this magnificent national park. And at the heart of this park, of this wilderness

and this park, is the Colorado River.

It has been written that, without the flowing river there is no

true Grand Canyon. It follows logically that the management of the

park must deal effectively with these two functional—foundational

elements of the park, that is, wilderness and the river. Many people can claim to be an interested stakeholder regarding park management. This would include all the past users of the park, the

present users of the park, and even potential future users of the

park.

In its purest form, the management planning process that’s currently underway simply grants fulfillment of the expectation of all

of these people that they will be listened to and have an opportunity to have input to park management decisions. It supplies the

Park Service with the concerns, opinions, ideas, and reactions of

people who know and use the park and its resources. It permits interested parties with differing points of view to learn about other

views and serves as a forum to make known all of the viewpoints.

We believe that the National Park Service policy guidance on

planning and wilderness properly reflects the spirit and intent of

the Wilderness Act. Further, the Grand Canyon National Park staff
43

has made a well-founded, reasoned, and positive effort to provide

all stakeholders with the necessary information and an opportunity

to respond to management proposals and concepts within the context of the administering laws. The complexities of the legal structure and the changes in park legislation, boundaries, relationships

to tribal neighbors, and types and magnitude of visitor usage over

the past 20 years bring potential need for changes in past proposals and potential new issues into the management picture. For

these reasons, among others, we recognize the need for this public

planning process and we are committed, along with many other

stakeholder groups, to participating openly and constructively in

that process.

We believe that it is important for the future management programs to be discussed between and among the stakeholders in the

context of their impacts upon various visitors and their park experience. It is important that the 1.1 million acres recommended to

Congress for wilderness designation within the park have an upto-date, well-designed, and cohesive management strategy, known

and understood by the people affected by such designation. And we

believe that the interested public deserves to have this opportunity

for input and deserves to have their identified concerns and ideas

addressed by the Park’s professional staff.

We have stated recently in a letter to all members of this Committee that we believe it would be premature and counterproductive for Members of the Congress to initiate legislative actions affecting individual elements of the management issues being

considered prior to completion of the final wilderness management

plan and Colorado River management plan. Ultimately, the final

decisions about wilderness designation and many of these other aspects that are related to that designation will rest with this Committee and with the Congress. Those decisions can be aided and

improved by the proper completion of the process that’s now underway at the park.

Mr. Chairman, I know there are several other important issues

and administrative processes occurring in and around Grand Canyon National Park. To the best of my ability, I would be pleased

to answer questions about them also. I again thank you for the opportunity to testify.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reffalt may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Reffalt. We appreciate your statement.

Now, you’ve all gone into some very interesting areas here. The

1964 Wilderness Act passed through Congress and you may all recall it says: ‘‘as if man was never there;’’ ‘‘no sign of man.’’ I think

the more interesting part of it is what was brought up on the Senate and the House floor. Kind of like in the court, you get the dicta,

you know, what did they really mean by their decision. And, really,

as you read what, especially Hubert Humphrey from Minnesota,

said, he said, ‘‘This would include no sign of man would mean no

roads,’’—and that’s a debatable point what constitutes a road. Two

tracks a road?—‘‘no fences, no structures; as if man was never

there.’’ An interesting statement, he said, he made this statement,
44

he said, ‘‘If you’re like the first man God put on Earth and there’s

nothing there but you.’’ You see, that’s what it would be like.

So, I find it interesting. I’ve been on this Committee for 18 years

and been part of a whole bunch of wilderness bills and a lot of proposals. And I’ve found it interesting that—the idea of what was the

original intent of Congress doesn’t seem to be there any longer. I

look at wilderness proposals from all of the States and, boy, we’ve

got some that go right over cities, over Class B and C roads. We’ve

got some that have active mines on them. We’ve got some that

have power lines right through the middle.

It also goes on in the Act to talk about mechanized things. People

interpret that to say motorized, but it says mechanized. And that

is why the trail bike riders want to take their trail bikes into wilderness areas. In the State of Utah, we did the Forest Service bill

in 1984. A big piece we put in, and it’s beautiful and probably really qualifies, is called the Uinta Mountain. And now there’s a big

push from a lot of our environmental friends who also ride mountain bikes and they said, well, we would like to deviate for that.

If anything, I think this Congress should do is to go back and

look at the wilderness bill and determine what a road is, because

that’s never been determined. I think it should have a Sunset provision to get things off dead center. And I think we should really

define mechanized.

When I look at this, Superintendent, and what the proposal is,

you go through the middle of the canyon and so that puts the entire river in the position of a wilderness, if I’m reading this right.

I’m not sure I am, but if I’m reading this right, the whole river

would be in it. Yet, we’ve gotten mechanized things and motorized

things going right down the canyon. So if we’re going to do this

proposal, we would have to write in a very strong exemption for

this work that’s being done as far these—Mr. Merrill’s comment

about there are rigs with motors on them.

We’d also have to say what a road is. And, if I’m reading this

right—I’m not sure I am—where you’ve gone through a lot of roads

in here. So I would assume that what the Park Service is saying

is that you would really want to eliminate some of these roads or

close them and let them come back to what they originally were,

as the Forest Service does on a regular basis.

I think that I’ve never seen one that will receive more controversy than the Grand Canyon. In the State of Utah, we have

about six parks that we are preparing to build to do the wilderness

part of it. I thought we’d sneak a little south and get yours in and

get it over with. However, I think yours will be more controversial

than the next 50 in line.

And I think Mr. Lynch brought up a very interesting point. And

another thing we’ve always talked about is the law of the river.

And, boy, we’re talking on some sacrosanct things. I mean, you’re

walking on eggs when you start talking about a man’s water.

You’ve heard Mo Udall say—what is it?—you can—Whiskey’s for

drinking and water’s for fighting. And I think that Mo was right.

That creates some real problems when we start getting into talking

about people’s water. I got into this business 40 years ago by working on a water system and have been part of a lot of projects. I can

see that yours isn’t going to be an easy go.
45

Mr. Grisham raised a very interesting point. A lot of people don’t

look at it, but, you know, when we create something in wilderness,

we actually bring more people in than was ever there before. When

the pioneers went West, a lot of that area hasn’t changed one iota,

not one smidgeon of it until we declared it wilderness. Just like the

present on the Grand Staircase Escalante. It was nothing up until

the time it became the Grand Staircase. Now people are coming in

there by the millions. Not to be crude, but the papers down there,

they call it toilet paper city.

And so you find yourself in a situation where a lot of these designations Mother Nature herself put something in wilderness, man

comes along and puts it in wilderness. The next thing we know,

we’ve got people coming from all angles looking at it. So I sometimes wonder and I’d almost wish sometimes we’d left this wilderness stuff alone, we would probably have more area that would be

preserved and in wilderness and pristine without man, than highlighting by wilderness.

But it sure has created a lot of jobs for a lot of people and maybe

that’s the good side of it. Look at all these environmental groups

now that have lawyers’ retirement plans and all these good things

that they’ve got that work very well. I say that respectfully, my

friend from American Samoa.

[Laughter.]

But they raise a lot of money. If I got 10 percent of the money

they raise on me, I’d be doing very well. But, anyway, with that

meandering said here, I have to go to another meeting. And there’s

nobody I trust more than the gentleman from American Samoa and

when the gentleman from Arizona, who has 2 hours worth of questions, comes back, would you turn the gavel back to him?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. [presiding.] Well, if he does come back. Because if I’m through with my questions and he’s not here, I’m going

to run this gavel down. Is that OK, Mr. Chairman? So it’s—I’ll be

more than happy to assist. Mr. Chairman, you were mentioning

about Mo Udall’s famous statement about whiskey for drinking and

water for fighting. I like to say whiskey for drinking and water for

killing. Because that’s—water’s even more precious than gold, I’m

told, in the western States. So I fully appreciate your comment on

that.

And I think, Mr. Arnberger, I have some additional questions

now that we’re talking about wilderness. Am I correct that the

draft proposal on the wilderness was strictly an in-house preparation? There was no consultations with any of the community organizations whatsoever?

Mr. ARNBERGER. No, that’s incorrect from our viewpoint.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. OK.

Mr. ARNBERGER. In fact, we have to look at a little bit of the history here. The wilderness recommendation made by the administration was completed in 1980. That went through a public scoping

process, four meetings, five meetings around Utah and around Arizona. A lot of input and so forth. That proposal was completed and

went through full public involvement process and so forth.

Subsequent to that, the proposal, the official recommendation by

the administration, never did come to Congress, was never presented. For what reason, I know not. And, in fact, we’ve had two
46

iterations of operational plans taking the wilderness law, the Wilderness Act, coupling it with the administration’s proposal, and trying to make some sense as to how we, in fact, manage those lands

to protect and preserve those, the wilderness suitability of those

lands and not diminish them should any future action be taken.

The present draft document you have is an operational plan in

which 1,000 leaflets and requests for comments went out to the

public. It’s been before the public. We gave an extension of the public review of this particular draft plan. And we have gotten extensive responses and so forth back from the public, which is one reason why we’re here.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Let me ask you another leading question on

this, Mr. Arnberger. If I’m correct to say that this was initiated

since 1980?

Mr. ARNBERGER. That’s correct.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And then the previous administrations kind

of waffled on it?

Mr. ARNBERGER. That’s right. In 1975——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. OK.

Mr. ARNBERGER. In 1975, the Grand Canyon Enlargement Act

specified that a wilderness recommendation would, in fact, be completed for Grand Canyon pursuant to the 1964 Wilderness Act. We,

in fact, accomplished that and then there was a decision to wait

until the Colorado River management plan was finished. It was finished. That proposal was sent to the administration. And, in fact,

it was basically completed—river management plan and wilderness

management plan—in 1980.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So it would seem that substantively that

you’ve taken this for the last how many years? I mean, with the

current draft proposal.

Mr. ARNBERGER. Well, with the current draft, we had the proposal completed in 1980. We did some sociological research in the

back-country and we completed our first back-country management

plan in 1988. And then in 1994, we began the planning on our second revision, which we chose to call the wilderness management

plan, and that’s the draft. So we’ve been involved in public comment or in process since 1976, if you really want to get to it, to the

present.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But, basically, since 1994, did you say?

Mr. ARNBERGER. Yes.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So it’s been about a 5-year period that

you——

Mr. ARNBERGER. Yes, we’ve been involved—and it’s only been in

the last year that we’ve got our—the actual documents written and

so forth and that’s where we’re at.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. OK. OK. And it’s as a result of this 5-year

period in drafting, commenting, and consultations that you’re proposing 1.1 million acres for wilderness.

Mr. ARNBERGER. No, that proposal for 1.1 million acres of wilderness is the administration’s wilderness proposal made in 1980.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. From 1980?

Mr. ARNBERGER. That’s right. This plan is doing nothing more

than taking that wilderness proposal that was never acted upon by

Congress—is taking that and putting some management and some
47

operational kinds of context to it. So, yes, we’re proposing it in this

plan, but it is consistent with the official administration wilderness

proposal made in 1980.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Now, the fact that it was never submitted

to the Congress since 1980, the report kind of became dormant, if

you will——

Mr. ARNBERGER. Well, it’s hard for me to answer that particular

question of why the report was not forwarded. I suspect that there

were perhaps certain kinds of political reasons at different epochs

and eras of history.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. To put it mildly, my friend Ronald Reagan

was President at the time, I think, after 1980 for 8 years. But, no,

that’s OK. I mean there’s nothing wrong with that.

Mr. SHADEGG. [presiding.] I thought Mr. Carter was President in

1980.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. No, President Reagan won against President Carter in 1980 elections.

Mr. SHADEGG. Held in November 1980, then.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Wasn’t it President Carter became—1976

and 1980?

Mr. SHADEGG. And President Reagan in January 1981.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. 1981. OK. Well, then, 8 years afterwards he

was President. Is that all right?

Mr. SHADEGG. You got it.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. OK. My point here, Mr. Arnberger, is that

I’m sure that you heard the comments made earlier by our friends

sitting next to you. Am I given the impression that there were no

consultations with four of these gentlemen representing these four

different interests and concerns?

Mr. ARNBERGER. No, sir. That is not the impression whatsoever.

In fact, we’d begun this process and the collateral Colorado River

management plan in full concert with these gentlemen. And, in

fact, all of us have known the very narrow precipice that we have

been walking on. And that is the unanswered issue of the wilderness issue relative to the need to, in fact, devise some management

strategies that marches into a new century with some of our needs.

And all of us have been looking for a way to assure ourselves that

we do not reopen the very damaging issue that happened in the

1980’s. And I’m not sure whether we’re going to make it.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So—and I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman, I know

you’re—and my time’s gone over.

Mr. SHADEGG. No, I’ll be happy to let you run over it. It appears

like this hearing is yours and mine. And I’ve got about 3 hours

worth of questions so I’m very tolerant.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. All right, Mr. Chairman. Just one more

brief question. Now I’m sure, Mr. Arnberger, that you’ve taken serious consideration of what Mr. Lynch has stated in his statement

about the water rights. And how seriously was the input on this

issue in the drafting of this wilderness proposal?

Mr. ARNBERGER. Well, the wilderness proposal—I think there’s

an entire section in that wilderness proposal that documents the

public involvement process. Now I’m not a water rights lawyer, but

in studying that particular proposal, I noted that back in 1977 and

1980 there was substantial comment and consultation with the
48

water rights interests in that time, including comments from the

Arizona Department of Water Resources and Bureau of Reclamation. And those—their comments are on file.

Now relative to the precise document that you have in front of

us, once again, it is based on that recommendation and does not

depart from the recommendations made in the 1980 proposal.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I think the concerns expressed by our

friends that are sitting next to you is that the train started moving

since 1980 and, despite all their recommendations and their suggestions, it seems that the train is not giving heed to their concerns. Is that an accurate depiction of what I’m——

Mr. ARNBERGER. Yes, sir, I think it is. I think that we have to

look at an extensive public involvement process that went into developing the wilderness recommendations in 1980. A tremendous

amount of controversy. And, in fact, the overwhelming public opinion at that particular time was to proceed ahead with that wilderness proposal.

Now there were interests that disagreed with that and that resulted in the Colorado River management plan and the Hatch

amendment that limited some of our funding capacities. Now this

is a contentious issue. To say that people haven’t been heard. Yes,

I disagree with that greatly. To say that everybody’s in agreement,

I agree—or not in agreement, then I would say, this is a contentious issue that wasn’t agreed to in 1980 and it’s not going to be

agreed to with any ease now.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And certainly you were not park superintendent in 1980.

Mr. ARNBERGER. No, sir, I was a park ranger running around in

Southern California at that time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Just one more question, Mr. Chairman, if I

might. Am I correct to state, Mr. Arnberger, that this draft wilderness proposal is far, far from being completed in any form or any

results? I mean, this is just being proposed?

Mr. ARNBERGER. This is a draft document and it’s a draft EA.

And there has been substantial public comment and some substantial concerns that have raised not only legal issues, but legislative

issues and, quite frankly, I’m not sure exactly what our next step

is except to say that there’s been substantial questions raised,

which is going to require some substantial review before we go further.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. SHADEGG. I thank my colleague. And I can assure you, you

can have a second round if you’re so inclined.

Superintendent Arnberger, let me begin by saying you and I

have had some frank conversations about these issues. We’re going

to have another one today.

Let me walk over history here. My friend, Mr. Faleomavaega,

says it started in 1980. In point of fact, it started before that. Your

appendix C walks through the time line. One can argue it began

in 1971 and I’ll bet you maybe it began before that.

But I want to go through the major points here. In 197—well,

1980—no, I’m sorry, 1971, 508,500 acres were proposed. Nineteen

seventy five, the National Park Enlargement Act is adopted. Nine-
49

teen seventy six, a preliminary wilderness proposal is offered with

992,000 acres—right from your document. Nineteen eighty, the

first plan is proffered. My understanding, pretty clearly, from your

staff, is that the current plan that’s before us was developed as a

result of an internal review of the 1980 plan and an updating of

the 1980 plan which was internal. Is that not correct?

Mr. ARNBERGER. Well, that’s correct. It was done in 1993. It was

an internal review and it was responding to the wilderness proposal that said that internal review should be done.

Mr. SHADEGG. OK.

Mr. ARNBERGER. And we did that in 1993 and it changed some

of those acreage amounts.

Mr. SHADEGG. OK. Internal review. And then we move forward

and in—at what point in time did you send out your scoping documents? Nineteen ninety three? Or when were the scoping documents sent out?

Mr. ARNBERGER. For this particular plan?

Mr. SHADEGG. Nineteen ninety five.

Mr. ARNBERGER. It was 1995.

Mr. SHADEGG. OK. At that point in time, no public notice went

out. Am I correct?

Mr. ARNBERGER. I believe you’re correct. I don’t know that for an

absolute fact.

Mr. SHADEGG. Which would mean that the first public notice that

went out would have been in June 1998.

Mr. ARNBERGER. For the official comment on the draft.

Mr. SHADEGG. And that, then, invited a 45-day comment period.

Mr. ARNBERGER. That’s correct.

Mr. SHADEGG. I must tell you that, with all due respect, that history is stunning because the record establishes that the last public

hearings at which people could comment on this plan, at which

hearings were held—and they were held in four different cities as

I understand, both in Utah and in Arizona, including my hometown

of Phoenix—were held in—not 1980—but 1976.

Mr. ARNBERGER. That’s correct.

Mr. SHADEGG. OK. I’ve got to tell you. In 1976, Adam Warebach,

the immediate past president of the Sierra Club, was in diapers.

He was less than a year old. In 19—there are constituents in my

district who have been able to vote in the last two presidential elections who have not had a chance to hear you present this at a public forum and have not been afforded a chance to give their testimony on it. And there are people who did appear at the last public

hearing on this issue and gave testimony, who had been dead for

nearly a quarter of a century.

I suggest that’s a huge flaw in this plan and I will tell you, pointblank, I think the Park Service needs to rethink its position and

if you agreed to my friend Mr. Faleomavaega, Congressman

Wayne, that this thing is no where near done and needs further

work, I urge you, in the strongest possible way, to recognize that

that means you need to hold hearings. You need to hold hearings

around at least the Southwestern United States and Congressman

Hansen’s State, in my State, preferably in my city, and allow for

public comment.
50

To allow 22 years to intervene between the last hearings, 1976,

4 hearings, and what appears to be the final promulgation of the

plan. I know it says draft, but it has a whole table for implementation. I just—I don’t understand that. I know that much of the time

delay is not your fault. You sent it in 19—I guess following the

1980 development of the plan, you sent it to the Secretary of the

Interior. He chose not to send it to the President. Not your problem. I don’t think you were superintendent in 1980. You just testified.

But for whoever is to blame for this massive amount of time, I

commend you for the internal review of 1993, but I simply think,

before you can contemplate adopting this plan, which would have

far-reaching implications for the people of Arizona, for the people

of Utah, for the people of the entire country, I think public hearings where you explain the plan and its implications and where my

regular folks can stand up and say, Gee, I think this is a good idea

or a bad idea. They can say what I say, which is it is absolutely

essential that we protect the pristine, untrammeled, untouched nature of that portion of the park which is also untrammeled and untouched, as the Wilderness Act contemplates. And that’s the vast

majority of the inner canyon. But they can also say, Well, wait a

minute. Your map shows that we’re going to close some roads and

keep others.

By the way, I sat with my staff last night and we looked at your

map. The map says, OK, these green roads are going to stay open

and these black roads are going to be closed. I can show you lots

of roads on your map that—lots of roads on earlier maps that are

not designated—they’re on your map—but they’re not designated

whether they will stay open or stay closed. So the graphic depiction

of that appears that they will not be closed, and yet the language

of the plan says they will be closed. So I think there are very, very

serious implications and I hope and would urge that you step back

and go back to a public comment basis.

Let me ask you—and I should afford you an opportunity to respond, I suppose.

Mr. ARNBERGER. I really only have one response and it’s more of

a clarification. And, as you and I have discussed, the environmental assessment is dealing with that management plan. OK?

Now the issue that you are bringing up of not—of the public input,

I believe in fact we have met the requirements of NEPA relative

to public input on that particular plan. Now that is a separate

issue from——

Mr. SHADEGG. On the environmental assessment——

Mr. ARNBERGER. On the wilderness management plan. Now that

is a separate issue from the currency of the NPS wilderness proposal, completed in 1980. The wilderness management plan, in

fact, is based upon that proposal and is consistent with that proposal, following those recommendations.

And I’m not disagreeing with you; I’m just trying to, for the sake

of clarification, to try to indicate there’s two separate pieces of business here. One is a management plan that is based upon a proposal, an administration proposal in 1980. And we went through a

process there and we believe that’s a consistent process.
51

But the issue of whether, in fact, you want to take the entire wilderness proposal back to the people, that’s a separate issue, in my

view.

Mr. SHADEGG. OK. Let’s go back to some basics. First of all, let’s

start at ground zero. What is the legal basis for, whether it’s statute or rule, for the Park Service’s determination that potential wilderness within a park must be treated as wilderness? Is that statute or rule?

Mr. ARNBERGER. It’s based on statute and then it’s further articulated—from the Park Service’s viewpoint, it’s based on statute

and then it’s further articulated in policy.

Mr. SHADEGG. OK. Yes. Our legal counsel says it’s not in statute

and that it is in fact in your policy. In arriving at that determination, do you not believe that public input, indeed, I think you said,

extensive public comment and public opinion is important? Don’t

you believe that, in fact, there should be current public input, if

you were to adopt such a plan?

Mr. ARNBERGER. I think that, with what is intended with that

management plan—and it’s founded upon a proposal that’s already

been made and been through public input—that, in fact, the public

input has been sufficient for that plan. And I still say that is a different issue than whether, in fact, it is important to pull the original wilderness proposal out and to take that forth and to begin

that process anew. That’s a decision that other people will have to

make.

Mr. SHADEGG. What other people?

Mr. ARNBERGER. Well, that proposal was put together pursuant

to the 1964 Wilderness Act and pursuant to the 1975 Grand Canyon Enlargement Act. That proposal was made. It has been forwarded to the administration. It has not been forwarded to the

Congress. There seems to me to be a spectrum of alternatives here.

This Congress can ask for the proposal. Congress can take action.

The administration can send it forward. The administration cannot. There’s a lot of those types of actions that I cannot commit or

do not have the capacity to commit anybody to here at this hearing.

Mr. SHADEGG. I really apologize if I seem slow, but I want to get

an understanding here. What you are saying is that the proposal

to treat certain areas—to designate certain areas as wilderness

went forward a long time ago, and that’s not the issue now. Not

what should or shouldn’t be wilderness, but rather how we treat

what is wilderness. Correct?

Mr. ARNBERGER. That’s a pretty good characterization.

Mr. SHADEGG. OK, then, so I understand it. I want Joe Six-Pack

back in Phoenix to be able to understand what we’re talking about.

Mr. ARNBERGER. Yes, that proposal went forth and went through

the public involvement process. And that proposal was made in

1980. It went through from, as you say, 1976 to 1980. That particular plan is a management plan to basically implement that proposal. And it is the second generation of our management operations at the park. We had a similar plan in 1988. It was known

as the back-country management plan.

Mr. SHADEGG. Was not the plan submitted to the Secretary of Interior in 1980 called the wilderness management plan.
52

Mr. ARNBERGER. Yes, it—no, it was called the wilderness proposal for Grand Canyon National Park.

Mr. SHADEGG. And did it address what should be treated as

wilderness——

Mr. ARNBERGER. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHADEGG. [continuing] or how wilderness should be treated?

Mr. ARNBERGER. It addressed what should be treated as wilderness; what roads would be closed; and what kind of uses would be

allowed. And it would be consistent with the 1964 Wilderness Act.

Mr. SHADEGG. And this plan is in fact an updating of that 1980

plan, upon which there was ultimately no action.

Mr. ARNBERGER. No, sir, it’s not an updating. It is an updating

of a 1988 management plan. Let me give you an example.

Another——

Mr. SHADEGG. Well, let me just—let’s cut to the chase here.

Mr. ARNBERGER. OK.

Mr. SHADEGG. If this isn’t an updating of the 1980 plan, the only

hearings that were public hearings that were held were held on the

1980 plan and they were held in 1976. So if this isn’t an updating

of that plan, then, Mr. Arnberger, Superintendent, there have been

no public hearings on this plan.

Mr. ARNBERGER. It is——

Mr. SHADEGG. I think you’re getting yourself in a box, which you

may not want to be in.

Mr. ARNBERGER. Well, I’m not trying to get myself in a box.

What I’m trying to understand or help you to understand is the

distinction between a management, an operational plan, at the

Park level and a proposal made for wilderness designation. Now

that particular plan is in every way consistent—and if you want to

say it is an updating, it’s an updating—but it is consistent with the

wilderness proposal made by the administration in 1980. In every

way, it is consistent with that proposal.

Mr. SHADEGG. OK. We’ve now agreed it is an updating and it is

consistent and, therefore, public hearings—whatever public hearings were ever held on this were held in 1976.

Mr. ARNBERGER. They were held in 1976, that’s correct.

Mr. SHADEGG. Although I guess you’re trying to tell me that in

part—is there anything in here that’s different? I understand the

1976 plan was about a quarter of an inch thick. This plan’s about

a full inch thick.

Mr. ARNBERGER. The—that particular plan conforms to National

Park Service guidelines and policy for, in fact, putting together wilderness management plans pursuant to the wilderness designation.

It conforms to the different categories and chapters that we have

to have in a plan to look at the cultural resources, how we’re going

to manage cultural resources, to articulate what trails are going to

be stained, to articulate to what standard those trails will be maintained, to articulate to what level roads will be maintained, and so

forth.

Mr. SHADEGG. In my office, you told me that this plan was an

updating of this plan, the back-country management plan, September 1988. That’s what we’re talking about?

Mr. ARNBERGER. That’s correct.
53

Mr. SHADEGG. OK. So we’re clear here. There have—the only

public hearings that my constituents could have participated in occurred back in 1976, 22 years ago.

Mr. ARNBERGER. On the wilderness proposal, that’s correct.

Mr. SHADEGG. And it’s your contention that that satisfied the

law.

Mr. ARNBERGER. It is my contention that satisfied the law, yes,

sir.

Mr. SHADEGG. And is it also your contention or is it not your contention that that’s an appropriate way, putting the law aside—

maybe we technically complied with the law; you apparently believe we did—that that’s an appropriate way to develop plans within the Park Service, to hold hearings at which the public can comment 22 years ago, and then act now?

Mr. ARNBERGER. The public commented in 1976 and they commented in 1998 as well. That plan that you have there went

through a public involvement process.

Mr. SHADEGG. Good. We’ve gotten to a point where we now also

have a sharp difference of opinion. You sent out 1,100 scoping documents to interested parties. I don’t know who those people were,

but there was, in fact, no public notice published in 1993 to the

constituents of my district, correct?

Mr. ARNBERGER. That’s correct.

Mr. SHADEGG. And there has never been, since, I guess, 1976,

perhaps, an invitation to the general public for public comment,

short of a hearing? In other words——

Mr. ARNBERGER. No, sir, we gave an invitation for the public to

comment on that draft plan that you have before you.

Mr. SHADEGG. Sent to those 1,100 people.

Mr. ARNBERGER. There was—we put press releases out and, in

fact, you’ve seen some of those press releases for which there, unfortunately, some headlines that were inappropriately and incorrectly reported.

Mr. SHADEGG. Interested and motivated groups could submit

written testimony.

Mr. ARNBERGER. We sent—yes, sir. We provided for that, as we

normally do.

Mr. SHADEGG. OK. Let’s go to a kind of a basic rule here. The

law sets forth the standard for potential wilderness, does it not?

Mr. ARNBERGER. Yes, sir. Yes.

Mr. SHADEGG. And it would require that, for example, on the

issue of roads, that there be 500—no, excuse me, 5,000 contiguous

acres where there are no roads and where the area is untrammeled

by man and unaffected. Is that right?

Mr. ARNBERGER. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHADEGG. OK. Do you know how much of—what proportion

of the land above the rim you propose to now designate as wilderness?

Mr. ARNBERGER. I don’t know the exact percentages. I can find

out for you. But, obviously, because of the size of the canyon, the

majority of the acreage is down in the canyon and so forth. But I

don’t know the breakout of above-rim and below-rim.

Mr. SHADEGG. Now let’s talk about inside the canyon for a

minute. Quite frankly, I don’t think we disagree about inside the
54

canyon except I’m curious about one issue and some may disagree

with me. Why shouldn’t—why should the cross-country corridor be

designated as not wilderness, if that’s to be hiked?

Mr. ARNBERGER. Because the decision was is that it did not meet

the wilderness criteria as articulated in the 1964 Act. It has a

power right-of-way; it has a water pipeline going down the center

of it; and it has historic—it has buildings that are located in it, different ranger stations and historic buildings.

Mr. SHADEGG. Right.

Mr. ARNBERGER. So it, in fact, it did not meet that criteria.

Mr. SHADEGG. I’m just curious here. Could not the pipeline corridor, the power corridor, and the locations of facilities, including

Phantom Ranch, be exempted from wilderness, but other portions

of the trail considered wilderness?

Mr. ARNBERGER. The way the configuration is, that probably

would not work.

Mr. SHADEGG. The pipeline and the power line don’t precisely follow the trail, do they?

Mr. ARNBERGER. In several places, they deviate by some small

sections and then they come in together. And, of course, there’s

water that goes up from Indian Gardens to the rim. It gets into an

area of practicality and whether that, in fact, meets the intent.

Mr. SHADEGG. Well, let me make it clear, I don’t disagree with

the designation of the vast majority of the inner canyon, perhaps.

We would be completely in agreement on the inner canyon, in your

proposal, treating it as wilderness. So we’re in agreement on that

part of it.

But you just said the reason that that was to be considered not

wilderness is because of inconsistent uses. The raft community

would say, by that same reasoning, that the river corridor should

not be considered wilderness and, in point of fact, in the 19—either

the 1971 or the 1980 plan, it was, in fact, specifically not to be

treated as wilderness for that reason.

Mr. ARNBERGER. That’s correct.

Mr. SHADEGG. OK. So why the change in reasoning now?

Mr. ARNBERGER. In 1975, the Grand Canyon Enlargement Act occurred. It told the Park to, in fact, develop a wilderness—a new

wilderness plan that was, in fact, responsive to the Enlargement

Act. In fact, we went out and did that. We had hearings and so

forth. It was—the river clearly meets the intent of the legislation,

relative to its capacity to be designated wilderness. I mean, there’s

a transitory use there on the river.

That plan was put together and, in fact, it called the 1970’s—

after the 1976 hearings, the 1977 plan was put together in which

it recommended the phase-out of the motorized travel on the river

to 1985. Accordingly, that potential wilderness category was put in

the proposal because, in fact, it called for the eventual phase-out

of motors in 1985. That did not sit well with certain constituencies

and, in fact, some changes were required of us, through an appropriations process. And then we redrafted the Colorado River management plan, which it basically delayed or forestalled any decision

on the motorized use on the river. And here I am today.

Mr. SHADEGG. If I heard you, one of the points I think you said

that would distinguish the river from the trail is that the inconsist-
55

ent use, i.e. motors, is transient, that is it comes and goes versus

the trail corridor, cross-canyon trail corridor, the inconsistent use

is permanent.

Mr. ARNBERGER. That’s correct.

Mr. SHADEGG. OK. In my office, you talked to me also about the

fact that this plan does not determine or foreshadow or even affect

an ultimate decision on motors. And that those who are deeply concerned about the motor issue need not be deeply concerned at this

point in time.

Mr. ARNBERGER. Both this plan—our attempts with this plan

and the concurrent Colorado River management plan was an attempt to get at some management issues we needed to get at, but

to defer the question of motors on the river until some future date.

Mr. SHADEGG. OK. Do you have the plan in front of you?

Mr. ARNBERGER. Do I have the plan in front of me? Very quickly,

I can. Yes.

Mr. SHADEGG. Would you turn to page 16–152?

Mr. ARNBERGER. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHADEGG. Top right-hand column. This is in the section on

wilderness management implementation plan, which is how you

implement this plan.

Mr. ARNBERGER. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHADEGG. On the right-hand column at the top it says, ‘‘Prepare other park management plans consistent with the wilderness

management plan.’’ Does that not indicate—and if it doesn’t,

why?—that this, in fact, does impact—perhaps some would say decide—but certainly impact the motor issue in the future? Because

if the Colorado River plan has to be consistent with this and if this

makes the river corridor wilderness and if motors are inconsistent,

why doesn’t the one, since the future plans have to be consistent

with this, foreclose that issue?

Mr. ARNBERGER. The decision was made to put the river issue,

the river wilderness issue, into the Colorado River management

plan. When we started out that public process, working with the

outfitters and working with all the constituency groups, we said,

very clearly, up-front, that this plan is not going to open up the motors versus the oars issues. That, in fact, we are going to focus this

plan in some other areas. And that’s what we have attempted to

do, to continue that deferral of this very, very sensitive and ticklish

subject.

Now if there is some language that sends some other messages

and, to the extent that it does, it has always been the intent of my

office to, in fact, defer this particular issue until such time as Congress makes the decision, when and if they do, and if there’s some

language that does that, then we will be more than happy to look

at it to try to fashion language that does not preclude either designation of wilderness or, in fact, the continuation of the present

status quo.

Mr. SHADEGG. Great.

Mr. ARNBERGER. We will look at that.

Mr. SHADEGG. I appreciate that very much. I mean, language

saying, Look, it is not our intent to foreclose this issue. I’m certain

we could—it may not satisfy rafters, but it would be a step in the

right direction and they’d have something to point to rather than
56

language which somebody else can point to that says the Colorado

River management plan has to be consistent with this plan. This

plan says wilderness. Wilderness means no motors. Sorry, guys, it’s

over.

Mr. ARNBERGER. There’s—yes, I understand the chain there.

Mr. SHADEGG. Next question: The report says that there has

been a world heritage designation by the United Nations of the

Grand Canyon and that that extends the greatest protection possible. Can you tell me what world heritage designation is and what

protections are extended and who has the right to protect them and

under what rule of law?

Mr. ARNBERGER. OK. Let me take a stab at that.

Mr. SHADEGG. OK.

Mr. ARNBERGER. The world heritage is a designation established

by the World Heritage Convention of which the United States is

signatory to that treaty. It is a designation that is simply a designation extended to the most special places on the face of the

earth, both cultural and natural places. Places such as the Taj

Mahal or the plains of Serengeti and Grand Canyon National Park.

It is a designation for the world to notify one another that, in fact,

this place amongst the world’s nations, in fact, is one of the most

special places.

Now, with it, it carries no requirement that we are to conform

to any other kind of requirement.

Mr. SHADEGG. Could it?

Mr. ARNBERGER. To my knowledge, no it could not. That there

is nothing that would ever supplant the rules and the laws of the

United States or the sovereignty of this Nation to, in fact, manage

that particular resource.

Mr. SHADEGG. Do you know the—can you cite the United

Nations——

Mr. ARNBERGER. Obviously, I cannot. But I can——

Mr. SHADEGG. Get that for us?

Mr. ARNBERGER. [continuing] get that for you, yes, sir.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. SHADEGG. I do have constituents who get very worried about

this issue.

Mr. ARNBERGER. I hear about them as well; hear from them as

well, so——

Mr. SHADEGG. On page 2–14 of the park, it says, ‘‘Congress intended park visitation to be contingent upon the ability of the NPS

to preserve the park environments in an unimpaired condition.’’

Taken literally, you, of course, would agree with me that that’s impossible.

Mr. ARNBERGER. Well, the unimpaired verbiage is, in fact, has its

origins within our own organic legislation of 1916 where, in fact,

we will manage these place in an unimpaired fashion for future

generations. Its been further held up by the amendments to that

organic Act in 1978 with the Redwoods Act where it said we will

not do anything in derogation of the values and purposes for which

those parks are established.

Now in terms of the ambiguity and so forth of talking about what

impairment means, then we get into somewhat of the same kinds

of discussions you get into with the overflights issue of what is sub-
57

stantial? And is 50 percent more or less or is that substantial? And

those discussions are, obviously, loaded down with lots of ambiguity.

The framers of the organic legislation, I think, had a clear intent

that they wanted people to use the parks to see and enjoy the

parks, but they did not want to impair the capacity to pass those

parks along in an unimpaired type—unimpaired fashion to future

generations. And I think that the framers of that legislation saw

recreational use and man’s use of the resource to be, perhaps,

maybe difficult at times to also taking care of the resource, but not

to be inconsistent.

But the idea, the fundamental idea was not to ruin these places

so that we couldn’t pass them on to our future generations.

Mr. SHADEGG. Unimpaired then meaning not damaged and not

damaged so as not to be able to preserve their character.

Mr. ARNBERGER. That would be a good way of getting at it.

Mr. SHADEGG. OK. I want to focus for a little bit on the road

issue. Do we have the maps that we brought? I have a concern

about the maps that I’ve seen. Your staff provided us with one

map—maybe we should give it to you—with green roads marked as

those roads that would remain open and black roads marked as

those roads that would be closed. Let me have my staff give you

that. I’ve got it folded up here. Hold on while we find the map.

Let me start first with do you—has the Park Service conducted

studies on the effect of road closures on access by either the handicapped or the elderly? Or, for that matter, by backpackers who

want to access remote areas of the park, drive in a ways, park, and

then hike from there?

Mr. ARNBERGER. Consideration and so forth of those particular

issues took place in the wilderness proposal period from 1976 to

1980. Those considerations were worked with. There was public

input. And, in fact, the road closures that we have proposed here

are consistent with that 1980 proposal.

Mr. SHADEGG. Adam Warebach couldn’t comment. Neither could

either of my kids or the voters in the last two presidential elections. I just—I’m troubled by this 1976 hearing for a 1998 plan. I

must tell you that.

If you look at that map, you can find on it a number of roads

which are on the map, but are neither green nor black, inside the

park.

Mr. ARNBERGER. Well, according—I must say, I’ve never seen

this map, so I appreciate my staff providing it to you.

[Laughter.]

I’ve got some maps and I think we can work our way through

this. The roads marked in black, by looking at the legend here, say

they are roads that are closed to mechanized use.

Mr. SHADEGG. Right.

Mr. ARNBERGER. Then there are in green are roads that are open

to mechanized use. Just as a precursor to this, there are some 120

to 130 miles of roads that, in fact, were going to be closed.

These roads, in some cases—as you say, the definitions here are

really tough—in some cases never were public access roads. They

were, in fact, roads to stock tanks; to certain particular areas that

were used primarily in the Kanab Plateau area, prior to the estab-
58

lish—the enlargement of the Grand Canyon in 1975; to little mining claims; to stock tanks; and so forth. When that use, in fact, was

moved out of there, those roads over the last 30 years have gone

to, in some cases, barely more than a dirt track.

Now, out of a 130 of those miles of roads, right around 80 miles

of those roads are being converted to public access trails. Now

there are a total of 10 roads and some 65 miles of roads that, in

fact, are designed and permitted, under the wilderness proposal, to

be open to mechanized use and to be trail heads. And that is consistent with the 1980 wilderness proposal.

Mr. SHADEGG. The Wilderness Act uses the word ‘‘roads.’’ It

doesn’t say what kind of roads. It doesn’t say stock tank roads; it

doesn’t say former mining claim roads. It says roads. And it says

that your evaluation—indeed it says the Secretary of Interior is to

review every roadless area of 5,000 contiguous acres or more in the

national parks and make a determination.

I am a little troubled by what you call public access roads. I grew

up in Arizona. I’ve driven in two-wheel drive and four-wheel drive

vehicles over a whole lot of roads. And I’ve used a lot of maps, like

the one in front of you and like the one up here, topo maps. And

it is my experience that, for every road that is shown on a topo

map, there are 10 others that are not shown.

And I am concerned, going back to this issue of public input, that

if your staff gave me that map saying, oh, these green lines are the

roads that are going to stay open. Isn’t that wonderful? And these

black roads are the only roads we’re closing. That that

mischaracterizes the fact. It sounds to me like it mischaracterized

it a little bit for you. And in a brief period last night my staff and

I were able to identify quickly four or five roads shown on that map

and on this map for which there is no indication of whether they

will be left open or closed.

However, the specific language of the plan answers that question. And the specific language of the plan says: we are leaving

these roads open, which I presume are the green lines on your

map, and every map is closed—every other road is closed. I would

submit to you that a fair argument can be raised that, in that aspect, the plan does not comply with the Wilderness Act. That, in

point of fact, there are vast areas where there are roads. There

were roads before 1976. And those roads, because of their existence, disqualify those areas from the language of Congress that

they put into the Wilderness Act that you have to look at roadless

area for 5,000 contiguous acres or more.

Now it may be appropriate, nonetheless, to consider closing some

of those roads. But when the last public hearings on this issue

where someone could question you about well, what roads did you

look at were held in 1976 and the only public comment they could

make would be based on a map which I believe we can demonstrate

is inaccurate if not demonstrably misleading, I think that raises a

serious issue about whether the plan comports with the law, No.

1—which is an important standard—and, No. 2, whether it’s welladvised.

Again, I have this view that we should strike a balance between

preserving that which is, in fact, wilderness—and I’ve conceded the

interior canyon clearly fits that, the vast majority of it. But I think
59

we have a careful study to do on the rim area above. And I’m not

convinced by what I’ve seen that that careful study has been done.

I would like, for example to know, has an aerial photograph been

taken of the park? And were these roads identified from that aerial

photograph or were they—and, if so, how old is that aerial photograph? And who got to see it? I’m sorry, Mr. Reffalt, you wanted

to comment on that point.

Mr. REFFALT. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to comment that I do

not completely disagree with your point about the roadless mandate in the Wilderness Act, but I do disagree that that’s the definition of wilderness in that Act. And the definition of wilderness—

and I’m reading from the Wilderness Act—contains a number of

things. This is found in section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act. And it

does not mention roadless at all in the definition.

It mentions that it is recognized as an area where the earth and

its community of life are untrammeled by man; where man himself

is a visitor who does not remain.

Mr. SHADEGG. I used that line untrammeled by man in my own

press statement on this issue today.

Mr. REFFALT. That’s correct.

Mr. SHADEGG. And I would at least argue that an area where you

have extensive roads has been trammeled by man. Now maybe we

disagree on that.

Mr. REFFALT. I will respond to that when I finish reading, Mr.

Chairman. ‘‘An area of wilderness is further defined to mean, in

this Act, an area of undeveloped Federal land, retaining its primeval character and influence without permanent improvements or

human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural condition and which, one, generally appears to

have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; two, has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined

type of recreation; three, has at least 5,000 acres of land or is of

sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an

unimpaired condition; and, four, may also contain ecological, geological or other features.’’

And I would argue that the statement about permanency is one

of the issues that was dealt with repeatedly during the first 10

years of study under the Wilderness Act by the agencies and was

discussed in literally thousands of hearings across this country.

And it was determined that, in most instances, when you had trails

that had been used as, you know, cow paths or driveways to water

tanks, et cetera, that they didn’t constitute permanence and that

they could be recovered and if the area surrounding them was still

in a condition that allowed for it to be protected in its primeval

condition, and it still was basically untrammeled, unchanged, it

hadn’t been so mechanized that it was different in nature from the

surrounding terrain, that it could qualify as wilderness if the Congress so determined.

And that has happened repeatedly. So I find what they’re doing

here in the National Park consistent with all of that.

Mr. SHADEGG. Well, at grave risk of embroiling myself in an

issue which I do not wish to go into, I will note that when the

President doesn’t know what ‘‘is’’ means and isn’t sure what
60

‘‘alone’’ means, it doesn’t surprise me that we may have disputes

or concerns about the ambiguity of the Act.

There is a definition of wilderness, but there is a separate command to look at roadless areas. I don’t know how you square those.

And perhaps you do. I don’t know that it’s worth going too deep

into this. But it is my prerogative to at least comment that I appreciate your remarks.

And I think they’re—you may be precisely correct except that I

find areas where there are extensive roads, whether they go to

stock tanks or otherwise, or being used by my constituents who

want to go back in there and camp, not to have been untrammeled.

And if there’s a stock tank, I find them maybe to have been developed. And who knows what permanent is? If permanent improvements meant permanent, there’s nothing permanent, I mean, so far

as I know, except maybe life or death.

And it talks about with the imprint of man’s work substantially

unnoticeable. Again, I’ve driven a lot of Arizona’s back country and

these roads, you find, precisely because they are noticeable. If they

were not noticeable, I think we wouldn’t be talking about them.

And to make practical its preservation and use in an unimpaired

condition, some would argue that they are in an impaired condition

by the roads. As a matter of fact, I guess the point would be, if the

roads aren’t a big deal, what’s the point in closing if closing them

means backpackers who want to reach remote areas of the park

will not be able to; handicapped individuals who want to reach that

part of the rural areas of the park will not be able to; what value

do we serve in closing roads that are extant?

And I guess one of the debates is: What roads are extant? Given

that all we see from the Park Service is markings on a map which

show they’re going to close some roads, but leave other roads, not

indicated whether they’re closing or not, but, in point of fact, in the

language of the plan, they are in fact closing them without letting

people know they’re being closed.

Mr. REFFALT. Well, without getting into that issue, because

that’s a question for the superintendent, again, I would point out

that we have, today, over a 30-year history of this Congress designating wilderness across America. We have areas within that system, such as the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge in New

Jersey that is 3,600 acres where the Congress of the United States

determined that this area of less than 5,000 acres was similar to

an island and that the disturbances that had gone on in that area

were not sufficient to disqualify it from wilderness. I would argue

that we have areas across this country where there have been

trails and other things that might have been called roads by some

and something else by somebody else, but the fact remains that

this Congress or previous Congresses have determined that they

weren’t permanent.

And so when you pile up this rather long history of the way that

it has been dealt with, both in the administrative end of it and in

the congressional end of it, I think what we find here is what the

Grand Canyon National Park is doing now and what Mr.

Arnberger’s staff is doing right now, fits nicely within all of that

context. And so it’s not different. It’s not unusual. It is a little late

in some respects, but when you look at the number of times that
61

the Acts have been changed, the boundaries have been changed,

the relationships within the park have been changed, then I find

cause to say, we agree that they should be addressing these issues.

And that’s exactly what they’re trying to do in this public process,

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHADEGG. By no means am I saying they shouldn’t be addressing this process. What I’m saying is that on its face it appears

this plan, although a draft, the public comment period is closed.

And there’s no reason to believe right now, as we sit here today,

that they are going to do a further environmental assessment.

There’s no reason to believe that they’re going to do an environmental impact statement. And there is certainly no reason to believe they’re going to hold further public hearings. And my point

and my questioning is to show that the record, to date, is I think

both outdated and inaccurate.

But, beyond that, I think you made an excellent point in highlighting a concern I had about this. You said in discussing this area

in New Jersey, where the Congress has decided that, even though

there may have been development in the past and even though

there may have been roads or other things inconsistent with wilderness in the past, that Congress has decided to now go back and

say, None of that is so permanent that this now cannot be treated

as wilderness and we, the Congress, are going to do that.

A substantial problem I have here is with the fact that this is

not the Congress acting. This is the National Park Service acting.

Acting to treat this as wilderness, even though the Congress has

not treated it as wilderness, has not designated it as wilderness.

And a concern that I have that the process which led to the park

treating it as wilderness—I mean, at the end of the day, it is not

going to matter if this plan moves forward in the absence of this

hearing and a chain is put across all of these roads because the

Park Service wants to put a chain across all those roads. It’s not

going to matter whether the Park Service put up the chain or Congress did, the chain’s going to be there and people are not going

to be able to access those areas if Mr. Arnberger and the Park

Service proceed with this plan as proposed and all the roads that

I found on this map which the map they’ve handed out doesn’t indicate are going to be closed are, in fact, going to be closed.

And it’s not going to be Congress saying, We think that area can

be restored. It’s not going to be Congress saying, We think it’s appropriate to designate this as wilderness. Even though, perhaps,

that’s inconsistent with the requirement in the Act that they submit to us areas that are 5,000 contiguous acres which are roadless.

But, rather, it’s going to be the Park Service doing that. And I

think that makes a big distinction between those—the treatment of

those areas by Congress and the treatment of these areas by the

Park Service, particularly when I believe the public input, which

Mr. Arnberger says has been extensive and adequate and which I

believe has been woefully inadequate. So.

Mr. REFFALT. Mr. Chairman, the—I agree with Mr. Arnberger

that there’s a distinction to be made here between the management

plan and the proposal for wilderness. And that sometimes gets a

little bit difficult to deal with in conversation, but I have stated

that maybe they’re a little bit slow. The fact is that the policy
62

statements within his agency that require this plan and require

many of the features that you find in this management plan have

been out for years. And the Park Service is required under the Wilderness Act to have policies of that nature.

And, fundamentally, the question becomes how can the National

Park Service or any other Federal agency who is directed under

law to study the areas and make recommendations to you, the Congress, about what does qualify and what doesn’t qualify and how

you should go about dealing with some of the issues that they have

to deal with in these areas, how do they do that unless they protect

your right as a Congressman to make a series of decisions at some

point in time? This area’s been waiting since 1971, when it was

first reasonably finished as a study. If they allow things to happen

in that park that change the fundamental nature of the park from

what it was in 1971, they’re taking away your right as a Congressman and this Committee’s right to make those decisions of what

qualifies as wilderness and what doesn’t.

And I think what Mr. Arnberger and his staff are trying to do

is assure the Congress that they will have an unfettered right to

make that decision at some point in the future. And I applaud

them for doing that.

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you very much. Mr. Reffalt, let me tell you,

this is not a recommendation. If they begin to implement it—and

there’s a time table for its implementation at the back of this—it

becomes effective as law. It is not a recommendation to the Congress. As I just said, when the chains go up across those roads, it

will not matter that the Congress has not acted.

And I, quite frankly, believe that you can study the maps of the

area above the rim and you can go out on the ground on the area

above the rim and discover that it is not me who is proposing to

fundamentally change the nature of those areas above the rim, but

rather the Park Service that is proposing to fundamentally change

the nature of those areas above the rim.

They are not currently being used as wilderness. They are being

driven on by motorized vehicles. They are being used by

recreationalists. I know them. They have come and talked to me.

And with a very broad brush, I believe the Park Service, for the

areas above the rim, in this plan, has said, Forget all those roads

that are back there that we haven’t bothered to go look at. We’re

going to ban mechanized use of them based on public hearings held

22 years ago.

So I think if it were simply a recommendation, if this were coming straight to Congress without implementation—and I don’t disagree with you that if it’s potential wilderness, they should protect

it between now and then. That might be a practical thing to do. I

don’t want to see it despoiled between now and then.

By the same token, I don’t want to see their plan, their development of a plan, their development of a plan with, I believe, inadequate public input because the public hearings, for whatever reason, were held 22 years ago, at a time when you may not have been

in this business, but I certainly was not, should become effective

and change the character of those lands above the rim. And I feel

that quite strongly and I hope I’ve made that clear.
63

Let’s—I want to go to a couple of other questions. There is—an

issue has been raised, Mr. Arnberger, that designating the river

corridor will—as a wilderness area—will make it more legally probable that you can be sued successfully to force motors off the river.

Do you disagree with that?

Mr. ARNBERGER. Forgive—run that argument by me again.

Mr. SHADEGG. Sure. Under the existing law, you are now treating this as wilderness, aren’t you?

Mr. ARNBERGER. Under policy, we, in fact, manage this area as

a de facto wilderness.

Mr. SHADEGG. OK. Under policy, you manage it as a de facto wilderness. And you have discretion to do that, correct?

Mr. ARNBERGER. Well, I have discretion within the bounds of policy and law.

Mr. SHADEGG. OK. And that discretion includes the discretion to

allow motors to be there, right?

Mr. ARNBERGER. That—the allowance of motors to be there was

based upon the 1980 Colorado River management recommendation

and the reality is is that in the 1980 wilderness recommendation,

the motors are to be phased out by 1985. So the decision to defer

the motor issue basically says that, until such future date that the

motors are—the use is extinguished on the river—and, in fact, this

area could stay in a potential wilderness classification because, on

that date, then, in fact, it would meet the wilderness stipulations.

That was the decision in bringing together the Colorado River management plan and the wilderness plan to the same focus point on

the same issue.

Mr. SHADEGG. So are you saying, then, that rivers are now allowed as a—I mean, motors are now allowed on the river as a matter of law or as a matter of discretionary policy?

Mr. ARNBERGER. What I’m saying is that the proposal that the

administration made for the wilderness proposal for Grand Canyon

National Monument provided for those motors to be phased out in

1985.

Mr. SHADEGG. OK.

Mr. ARNBERGER. That that proposal never was carried through

because of the changes in the river management plan, it was never

changed. So we are sitting here with basically a proposal that allows that river use—or that motor use until such time as it is extinguished, with no date effective.

Mr. SHADEGG. OK. If I hear you correctly, says, you believe you

have the discretion to allow that use because no law says you cannot. No statute says you cannot.

Mr. ARNBERGER. I think it’s consistent with the proposals that

have been made prior to my tour.

Mr. SHADEGG. OK. It is argued—and this is not necessarily my

argument but it is argued by some—that if a written plan is adopted, that that plan will then affect your ability to make this call as

a matter of discretion. And that if the plan calls for, in writing,

treatment of the river corridor as wilderness and says motors are

inconsistent with wilderness as this plan at least states at one

point, that the adoption of the plan will enable someone to file a

lawsuit and to say that the superintendent no longer has discretion

to allow motors because the plan says the corridor is wilderness
64

and the plan says motors are inconsistent with wilderness. Have

you heard that argument? Do you understand it? Do you reject it?

Mr. ARNBERGER. I have not heard that argument. I don’t know

how that would come about. I would—I guess, you know, I would

say that motors are inconsistent with wilderness and this particular area, that river corridor, has been established as a potential

wilderness. And it says that there are motors on there that are inconsistent with the wilderness values and when they are removed,

then it can become wilderness. So, to the extent that that particular argument is made, I would say that the argument has already been made in 1980.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Grisham or Mr. Merrill, do you want to comment on that?

Mr. GRISHAM. Our understanding, our read of this issue, sir, is

that when the Park Service classified the river corridor as a potential wilderness area, it triggered Park Service regulations that say

a non-conforming use must be removed at that point. So the legal

challenge that could be brought that I think you’re making reference to would be that they haven’t lived up to their own regulatory obligation to remove a non-conforming use from a potential

wilderness area.

Mr. SHADEGG. So the adoption of the wilderness management

plan will not advance that legal argument?

Mr. GRISHAM. I’m not sure that it’s relevant. I’m not sure that

the adoption of the management plan is relevant to that particular

legal argument. The relevancy flows from the classification of the

area as a potential wilderness area.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Merrill.

Mr. MERRILL. I’d just echo what Mr. Grisham said, that one of

the things we’re specifically calling for is the removal of that potential wilderness status and classifying the river as a non-wilderness

access corridor in the same manner that the cross-canyon corridor

is designated, specifically for that reason.

Mr. SHADEGG. And Mr. Arnberger would say that’s not an issue

in the plan—in the management plan.

Mr. ARNBERGER. That’s correct.

Mr. SHADEGG. OK.

Mr. GRISHAM. If I could add to that, sir.

Mr. SHADEGG. Sure.

Mr. GRISHAM. We don’t believe the Park Service intended it to

be an issue because their desire was to kind of continue this dichotomy in order not to confront the issue, quite honestly. It’s become

an issue recently because it’s been raised by a variety of constituency groups in their comments to the draft management plan.

Mr. SHADEGG. Well, in that regard, would you be satisfied with

Superintendent Arnberger’s earlier offer to put language in there

that clarifies that it is not intended to be affected by this?

Mr. GRISHAM. Our comfort level with that course of action would

be dependant on legal reviews coming both from the solicitor’s office at the Department of Interior and independent confirmations

of that.

Mr. MERRILL. And I would have to also agree with my good

friend Mark that my language would have to go through the—

through a similar food chain of review and so forth.
65

Mr. SHADEGG. Well, it’s clear that that’s your intent and that

that would be something that would give them some level of comfort. So, perhaps we find that.

You know, we’ve been at this a long time. Mr. Arnberger, you

would not object if we submitted a few additional questions in writing, would you?

Mr. ARNBERGER. Absolutely not, sir.

Mr. SHADEGG. Well, in that case, in the absence of any other

questioners—none of these notes deal with questions, so I thank

you all very much. I appreciate your time and your energy put into

this.

And I do think, as I said at the outset, No. 1, Superintendent,

you have an incredibly difficult job. You are not responsible for the

delay since the public hearing, but I feel strongly that public hearings are called for. And, No. 2, I think this is extremely important.

I do think there are far-reaching implications. I understand you’re

kind of just trying to do your job. It’s already been designated wilderness, so far as the Park Service is concerned. Now you’ve got to

figure out how to manage it.

And I hope by my comments, I haven’t indicated—and I think

Mr. Reffalt suggested this—that I am antagonistic to doing what

you are trying to do. I am only concerned that we do it in a way

that is—that strikes the proper balance that I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting. Now, I’m very anxious, extremely anxious

to protect the pristine areas that can and should be protected. I’m

a little worried about whether, above the rim, we’ve overreached

and not allowed enough public comment to decide if we’ve overreached, but I don’t know the answers.

But under no circumstances do I want my comments interpreted

as saying you shouldn’t be trying to do this or that you’ve done

anything wrong in trying to do it. So I hope we can work—continue

to work together. You and I have worked together well in the past

and I’m sure——

Mr. ARNBERGER. Thank you. We have a good relationship. Yes.

Mr. SHADEGG. I’m sure we’ll do so in the future. I thank you gentlemen very much.

Mr. GRISHAM. Thank you.

Mr. SHADEGG. This hearing is closed.

[Whereupon, at 1:51 p.m., the Committee was adjourned, subject

to the call of the Chair.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
66

STATEMENT OF ROBERT ARNBERGER, SUPERINTENDENT, GRAND CANYON NATIONAL

PARK

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to explain the draft

Grand Canyon River Wilderness Management Plan and its association with the Colorado River Management Plan, and the use by the National Park Service of data

relating to air tour flights over Grand Canyon National Park.

The Relationship of the Draft Grand Canyon Wilderness Management Plan

to the Colorado River Management Plan

The Draft Wilderness Management Plan for Grand Canyon National Park was released for public comment in June 1998. The comment period ended on September

15, 1998. The draft plan essentially calls for the National Park Service to manage

1,109,257 acres of proposed wilderness, and 29,820 acres of ‘‘potential’’ wilderness,

in a manner that is consistent with the 1964 Wilderness Act, the 1975 Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act, and a 1995 directive issued by the Director of

the National Park Service.

Specifically, the draft plan calls for a management program that would focus on

providing the public sufficient access to proposed wilderness, the preservation of wilderness resources and values, personal safety, and resource protection. The plan

would establish and rehabilitate areas that have been impacted by use, restore to

natural condition several four wheel drive dirt roads, and relocate and rehabilitate

rim access trails. The plan calls for the retention of ten primitive roads to provide

mechanical access to wilderness trailheads and scenic vistas. It also provides for

stock use of six rim wilderness trailheads and one inner canyon wilderness trailhead, and defines the criteria for preserving 63 individual trails. The cultural resources component of the draft plan calls for the National Park Service to develop

management strategies to determine eligibility of structures for the National Historic Register, and the implementation of archeological surveys, among other things.

Consistent with long-standing NPS policy, the plan calls for proposed wilderness

to be managed in the same manner as wilderness that has been designated by Congress. The proposed wilderness of 1,109,000 acres is the land the National Park

Service has recommended pursuant to the 1964 Wilderness Act and the 1975 Grand

Canyon Enlargement Act to be designated as wilderness. By managing this land to

preserve its wilderness qualities, we are preserving the Congressional intent underlying these statutes, which called for the Park Service to recommend areas of the

park system (Wilderness Act) and Grand Canyon National Park (Grand Canyon Enlargement Act) for wilderness designation.

The draft plan treats 29,820 acres of Colorado River Corridor as potential, rather

than proposed wilderness. The reason for this is that this area experiences significant usage from motorized rafts, which would be inconsistent with future wilderness

designation. The draft plan does not propose a phase-out of motorized usage and essentially defers to another planning instrument, the Colorado River Management

Plan, for the management of this area.

The Colorado River Management Plan, which has not gone through a meaningful

public review since 1980, is in the preliminary stages of revision. A revision is necessary because since 1980 river usage and the demand for river usage has increased, and the impact of usage on the river has become more pronounced. Objectives for the new plan include improvements in the management of visitor use, the

protection of river related resources, and ensuring that visitor opportunities are

more consistent with the goals established by the 1995 Grand Canyon General Management Plan. As part of this process, Grand Canyon National Park sought ideas

from the public as part of a scoping process that took place from September 1997,

to December 1997. In addition, five informal public work groups have been formed

to address key issues and a method for these groups to seek public involvement

through the Internet has been established. We expect a proposed River Management

Plan to be issued for public comment within one year.

Analysis of Data from Overflights

I would like to turn now to the second part of this hearing, the analysis of data

relating to scenic air tour flights over the Grand Canyon. Public Law 100-91 in 1987

(commonly referred to as the ‘‘National Parks Overflights Act’’) required a plan providing ‘‘for substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the park

and protection of public health and safety from adverse effects associated with aircraft overflights.’’ This Act also required NPS to submit a report to Congress on ‘‘. . .

whether this plan has succeeded in substantially restoring the natural quiet in the

park.’’ Extensive acoustical and sociological research was conducted between 1989

and 1993 to provide the information for this report. This report was submitted to

Congress in 1994 and published in 1995. In this report the National Park Service
67

concluded that the phrase ‘‘substantial restoration of natural quiet’’ required 50 percent or more of the park to be without the sounds of aircraft for 75 to 100 percent

of the day. In the case of The Grand Canvon Air Tour Coalition vs. The Federal

Aviation Administration the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently ruled that the use of acoustic data to determine the degree of natural quiet

is not unreasonable. No acoustic research has been completed at Grand Canyon

since 1993, although the FAA has initiated some visitor-based, dose-response research in the park this past summer.

To predict the acoustic impact of aircraft noise in natural and park-like settings,

the NPS contracted with leading modeling experts to design and build a state of the

art computer noise model that would accurately model the park acoustic environment. The result was the NODSS (National Park Service Overflights Decision Support System) model, which is able to measure the impacts of aviation noise on

ground visitors at a resolution of 300 meters, even with respect to the complex topography of Grand Canyon. Using inputs including the acoustic characteristics of

the park and various aircraft types and the number and routing of overflights operations, the model is able to characterize how close the Park is to reaching its goal

of substantial restoration of natural quiet.

The FAA uses the ‘‘Integrated Noise Model’’ (INM) to provide predictions of acoustic impacts on communities around airports. The FAA produced an expanded

version of the model for the preparation of environmental documents associated

with the proposed and final rules. In the Grand Canyon case, the FAA has used

INM together with NPS acoustic data and FAA/NPS estimates of the number of

overflights and location of operations to produce the results provided in their environmental assessments.

An understanding of how much of the NPS natural quiet restoration goal has

been achieved is critical to the rulemaking process in which the NPS and FAA are

now engaged. The two models, however, produce somewhat different results. As the

two models were developed for use in very different settings and for somewhat different purposes, it is not surprising that they do not produce identical results. Although we believe that the NODSS Model is the best product we could have produced at the time, neither model has been field validated in relation to its ability

to precisely accomplish its intended purpose.

To determine how to best model the acoustic impacts of overflights-produced noise

at the Grand Canyon, the FAA and the NPS have agreed to conduct a model validation study that should provide additional information regarding the accuracy of

these models and perhaps others that we have not tested at all. The design, implementation, and results of this model validation study will be monitored by a panel

of internationally acclaimed acoustic experts. By combining the model validation

study with review by a technical review committee in an open process, we expect

to achieve both better science to enlighten our policy and regulatory decisions and

to generate greater public confidence in our processes, results, and future decisions.

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

STATEMENT OF ELLING HALVORSON, PRESIDENT, PAPILLON AIRWAYS, INC., GRAND

CANYON, ARIZONA

Honorable Chairman, Members of the Resource Committee, and Others:

My name is Elling Halvorson. I reside in Seattle, Washington, and represent Papillon Grand Canyon Helicopters and Grand Canyon Airlines, as well as members

of the United States Air Tour Association and Helicopter Association International.

I have been asked to tell why I commissioned a study, at significant personal expense, to demonstrate the actual impacts of scenic flights over Grand Canyon National Park.

Since all aircraft based out of Grand Canyon National Park Airport operate in the

central region of Grand Canyon National Park, the study I authorized was confined

to that area.

My reasons were very simple as follows:

When I first read the National Park Service’s Report to Congress, which included

their sound study, it became apparent to me that the sound study was biased because there is no way that aircraft can be heard in certain areas of Grand Canyon

National Park, which were highlighted with red color as areas of impact in the

study.

The National Park Service’s Report to Congress reports that less than 1⁄2 of 1 percent of the parks’ almost 2,000 square miles is sound free from touring aircraft (approximately 8 square miles). This is an absolute untruth.
68

As certain as I stand before you today, I can assure you beyond any doubt that

there are hundreds of square miles of the Grand Canyon where touring aircraft cannot be heard. The flawed study has misled Congress, the Press, and the Public regarding the impact of touring aircraft at the Grand Canyon.

Over the past several years, I have confronted appropriate Park Service personnel

with the fact that there are flaws in their presentation to Congress. I have attempted to advise everyone involved in the issue that there were biases in the

study. I did this through my written and verbal responses to the Draft Studies, responses to NPRM’s, as well as a formal statement at every major meeting called

by either the Park Service, the Senate Aviation Subcommittee, ‘‘Finding a Balance’’

workshops, etc., as well as private discussions with key members in the National

Park Service.

I was unable to raise any interest in correcting the inaccurate data supplied by

the National Park Service. Therefore, two and a half years ago I commissioned JR

Engineering to conduct a factual study of air tour overflight sound at Grand Canyon

National Park. I asked JR Engineering to obtain accurate records of type and time

of all aircraft that flew in the central region of Grand Canyon National Park. I

asked them to take a conservative approach that could not be questioned. The JR

Engineering study confirmed my non-scientific observations regarding noise in

Grand Canyon National Park.

After the preliminary study was completed, I met individually with key members

of the National Park Service and told them that the study existed. I outlined for

them the problems with the National Park Service study. I said that I would prefer

to not go public with my study since we were trying to cooperate with the National

Park Service. I recited that it would be most pleasing to myself and everyone involved if the Park Service would correct the errors in their own study and give a

corrected presentation to Congress, the Press, and the Public.

I withheld the study for approximately one year hoping that some fruit would

come from my discussions so there would not have to be any embarrassment over

this issue.

During that interim period of time, I shared the study with leadership of United

States Air Tour Association and Helicopter Association International. Although the

Helicopter Association International did not question the materials, they felt they

needed some reassurance by outside experts. They sent the study for peer review

to Dr. Krish Ahuja, a notable technical consultants in this field. Dr. Ahuja is a regent researcher and professor in the field of aviation acoustics at Georgia Tech University.

After reviewing the work that had been performed by JR Engineering, Dr. Ahuja

confirmed that aircraft activities in the central region of Grand Canyon National

Park already met and exceeded the goals of the National Park Service. This is the

heart of the issue ‘‘Aircraft activities in the study already exceeded the National Park

Service goals for natural quiet.’’

STATEMENT OF ROBIN T. HARRISON, P.E.

Chairman Hansen, members of the Committee. My name is Rob Harrison. I am

an engineer trained in aeronautical and acoustical engineering and, until my retirement in 1993 from the U.S. Forest Service Technology & Development Center at

San Dimas, California, was the Program Leader for Aviation and Acoustics. My duties included the study of the noise of a large number of vehicle types and their effect on forest visitors. Over my nearly 30 year career, I have made thousands of outdoor noise measurements, assessing the effect of the noise from airplanes, firearms,

motorcycles, boats, dune buggies, chain saws and just about anything else you can

think of, on visitors to our National Forests and Wilderness areas.

I will take the credit, or the blame, for being, along with my colleagues Drs.

George Stankey and Roger Clark, the fellow who first proposed a systematic assessment of natural quiet as a separate resource. The thought that natural quiet was

a resource to be protected and managed like wood, water, air, wildlife, recreation,

and other accepted resource values, was a radical thought then. The problem that

Stankey, Clark and I posed, in 1972, was that there was no accepted definition of

the impact of intrusive noise on wilderness visitors. Although almost all outdoor

recreation and wilderness management professionals now accept that the acoustic

environment is a resource worthy of our protection, the problem that we raised over

20 years ago remains unsolved. Even in our earliest work we realized that any legitimate definition of natural quiet would need to be framed in terms of human impact. The Park Service has rejected this obvious truth, and continues to refuse to

consider the park visitor in its attempt to define natural quiet.
69

1When I was a freshman in college, more years ago than I like to remember, I had the pleasure and honor of studying with a truly great engineer, a man named R. A. Wanless. He was,

before his tenure as a professor, the State Bridge Engineer of Oregon. In civil engineering circles, the bridges of Oregon developed under Dr. Wanless are known for their esthetic and engineering beauty. Each answers a particular and varied problem, that of bridging a chasm in an

esthetic, efficient, and durable manner. Dr. Wanless left imprinted on me a basic truth which

has served scientists and engineers since before Archimedes. That is, that a problem well-defined is a problem more than half solved. The Park Service has never permitted the development of a definition of natural quiet. Any definition of natural quiet which does not consider

the attributes of the listener, including self noise, is scientifically indefensible. The Park Service

recognizes this, and, since their goal of eliminating aircraft flights over national parks cannot

be met if natural quiet is so defined, they have waffled this issue to death.

As part of my duties at the Forest Service, I was the Technical Adviser to and

co-author of the U.S. Forest Service Report to Congress published in 1992. I ask the

Committee’s permission to append to my comments a copy of that report, along with

copies of other presentations that I have made covering this area. They will contain

details of some of the points which I hope to articulate today, but cannot expand

upon for lack time.

Public Law 100-91 mandated that the Park Service and the Forest Service study

the effects of aircraft overflights. In the initial stages of the research effort, the Park

Service and the Forest Service worked together and the studies required by the law

were considered as a single project. I and my Forest Service colleagues, Bill

Makeland Larry Hartmann, were consultants and advisers to the Park Service, as

the Park Service recognized that they had inadequate technical expertise to manage

such a scientific study. What the Park Service contributed to the joint effort, in addition to a share of the money to fund the various contractors which actually carried

out the field studies, was their expertise in contracting. Together, the NPS/USFS

core team negotiated the contracts which led to the initial scientific studies underlying the Report to Congress of 1994 which we discuss here today.

The Park Service’s initial approach, which I considered admirable, was to look for

the best scientific minds that could be found, put them under contract, and have

them help us develop impartial scientific data which could be used to develop and

support aircraft management strategies for the National Parks and the National

Forest Wilderness Areas.

The result of this work was to be two reports to Congress, one by the Forest Service, one by the National Park Service, which represented what both agencies considered to be the best engineering and scientific information which could be gathered.

Central to this effort was the development of a definition of natural quiet.1

I was excited and honored to be part of this effort, and we worked diligently towards timely fulfillment of the Congressional mandate. I visited many, many Forest

Service Wildernesses, and a large number of National Parks, making many measurements of the sounds from aircraft and the background myself, and supervising

many more. The measurement work done in the early stages of this project represents the state of the art, and produced a large volume of really excellent data.

Concurrently with the measurement work being carried out by our prime contractors, careful research of the literature as to the effects of aircraft noise on wildlife

and structures, as well as surveys of park and forest managers regarding safety,

etc., were being conducted. Those were great days for me as an acoustical engineer

and engineering manager. I finally had at my disposal the money and resources to

answer scientific and management questions which I had first raised nearly 20

years before.

I was troubled, however, by some of my visits to national parks. In Hawaii Volcanoes, for instance, a meeting with the park employees was arranged at their request. They wanted to put in front of me their concerns about how the noise of helicopter overflights in and near the park was distressing them, the employees. They

wanted to be sure that I knew what an unbearable racket they were forced to put

up with. When I queried them about effects on wildlife, about visitor complaints,

or about compromises to safety caused by these helicopter overflights, little or no

concrete information was forthcoming, merely a reaffirmation that the biggest problem was the effect on the park employees. I did not read Public Law 100-91 to concern itself with the employees’ acoustical environment, and so I did not carefully

heed the things they had to say at this early stage. In retrospect, I should have realized what I was seeing and hearing.

As the preliminary reports and results started to roll in, the Forest Service team

busied itself preparing its Report to Congress. The Park Service, however, seemed

to be less impressed with the results received. Payments to contractors were delayed, revisions were demanded, more work was proposed. I found myself being invited to fewer and fewer parks, and being consulted less and less often. By this
70

2 It is interesting to note that the Report to Congress was first issued in standard government

Xerox green, following the time honored adage of government publication: ‘‘Make it look cheap

no matter how much it costs.’’ In July 1995, the same report was reissued in a very fancy format

with much thicker paper, giving the appearance of greater weight. The bias of the preparers

of this attractive document shines through. I would refer you to Figure 4.6 where, in the original

report, helicopter noise was assaulting an old building but, in the upgraded version, the Statue

of Liberty is now under attack by blade slap. 3The U.S. Supreme Court has recently established standards by which scientific evidence will

be accepted. (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)). Basically, the

Daubert decision states that scientific evidence will only be accepted when it is of a type that

is accepted in the scientific community, and has undergone peer review. My reading of the Park

Service report convinces me unequivocally that the conclusions are castles built on sand, and

time, it was clear to me what was happening. The Park Service was not happy with

the results that it had obtained from its contractors, because these results did not

support the preconceived notion that the parks, and Grand Canyon in particular,

had a serious natural quiet problem.

The Park Service seems to take the position that any non-indigenous acoustic signal, regardless of its level, is a compromise to natural quiet. In this regard, the Report of September 12, 1994, is an instructive document.2 Referring to Page 3.13,

‘‘When visitors can hear the sound of an aircraft, natural quiet does not exist.’’ This

is simply not so. There is a mature body of literature which indicates that the level

of the intrusive sound at the listener’s ear is only a part of what affects whether

a sound will be heard and reacted to. The background sound at the ear, including

the self-noise generated by the listener, and the activities and attitude of the listener, are all equally important in the listener making the decision that, yes, indeed, something has been heard. The listener must take a further step to identify

the sound, and then a further step yet that some adverse effect, such as annoyance,

results. As noted from the statement at Page 3.13, the Park Service assumes that

if a sound can be heard . . . not is heard, not will be heard, but can be heard—implying that if it is measurable, or even immeasurable but present . . . it will compromise

the natural quiet.

To consider natural quiet as a resource without considering potential human listeners is a serious flaw in logic. The Park Service has presented no scientific evidence that establishes that acoustic vibrations that emanate from tour aircraft (or

any other source, for that matter) are harmful to any animal, plant, land form or

other natural or cultural feature of the parks. The only harm that can be established is the alleged intrusion into natural quiet as perceived by human visitors.

There is a great deal of disagreement, even amongst knowledgeable professionals,

as to how loud a sound must be at the listener’s ear in order to provoke annoyance

under various circumstances. However, one thing that all professionals agree upon

is that the only effect of sound at the very low levels of aircraft overflights in national parks is annoyance. Certainly there are no direct hearing health impacts, no

sleep interference, no communications interference.

The Report dismisses any argument that the background sound at the listener’s

ear should be considered, by saying, ‘‘Such areas, however, are likely to have very

low ambient levels and hence intruding sound will be more easily heard.’’ Again,

completely wrong, without support in the literature, and absolutely incompatible

with current scientific thinking.

Compare this to the discussion of aircraft noise effects on wilderness visitors at

Page 2.22 in the Forest Service Report. ‘‘Few adverse impacts to wilderness users

were found resulting from overflights.’’ ‘‘Seeing aircraft had less impact on visitors

than hearing them.’’ ‘‘The principal adverse impact was aircraft noise induced annoyance of a fairly small percentage of outdoor recreationists.’’ The Park Service approach has completely ignored the visitor, and taken the listener out of their assessment of the effect of aircraft overflights. Their misguided attempt to restore ‘‘natural

quiet,’’ without providing any kind of a scientifically defensible definition of natural

quiet, is without scientific support.

There has been, since the Renaissance, a basic paradigm used by the scientific

community to determine what is true and correct. It is called the peer review process. Scientific work is intended to be transparent. A scientist or an engineer prepares a plan and observes the physical universe in accordance with this plan to determine whether the proposition that he is investigating is or is not so. He prepares

his findings in as unbiased and straightforward manner as he is able, and presents

his plan and data to his peers, for review. The peers, hopefully without biases of

their own, comment, dispute and reject or accept. While no one can say that the

peer review process is perfect, it certainly has served western civilization well. The

Park Service’s findings not only suffer by lack of any outside review, they are clearly

presented with an agenda in mind.3
71

that the report falls far short of Daubert standards. I would have more respect for the Park

Service if they would simply come out and say that they have made the arbitrary management

decision that any atmospheric acoustic signal, regardless of its magnitude or character, and completely independent of whether it is audible or detectable, constitutes a breech of the natural

quiet which must be eliminated. They, of course, cannot do this because rational people recognize that such a situation would be completely inappropriate as well as impossible to achieve.

So they continue their campaign to restrict uses of the national parks by employing pseudo

science, and a shifting target of a definition of natural quiet.

Since the clear intent of Public Law 100-91 was to assess, with scientific integrity,

the extent that natural quiet is compromised in National Parks, and since it is

equally clear that the NPS has not done so, I urge you to reject this report. It does

not fulfill the Congressional mandate of Public Law 100-91. I further urge you to

direct the NPS to develop a definition of natural quiet that considers park visitors

and their activities before they, the Park Service, are allowed to further attack legitimate uses of the parks in the guise of restoring natural quiet.

USATA MEETING—16 SEPTEMBER 1997—LAS VEGAS, NEVADA

KEYNOTE ADDRESS

SCIENCE, FEELINGS, AND NATURAL QUIET

ROBIN I. HARRISON, P.E.

It is a great pleasure and honor to address you today. It is a particular honor to

be referred to as a keynote speaker. As you have heard from John, I am an engineer, and engineers are seldom called to the high office of keynote speaker. I think

I can explain why this is. Here in the west in particular we have always sought

dignified, statesmanlike keynote speakers. To carry off a keynote speech one must

have an almost Abraham Lincoln-like bearing. We normally see Abraham Lincoln

in a high top hat and a frock coat with his right hand carefully grasping the lapel

of the frock coat. You will remember from your college days that engineers were the

first to embrace the polyester leisure suit with enthusiasm. The slipperiness of this

material precludes that pose, and therefore engineers fell out of favor as keynote

speakers, a favor, I fear that has never been regained. Normally, as an engineer,

I carry two plastic pocket protectors, but I left them home because I thought they

would not look statesmanlike.

My friend, and your president, has articulately described the welcome news that

things are looking up for us vis a vis the natural quiet issue. I am told that our

position is being heard in high places, that the National Park Service functionaries

are treating us with more respect and deference, and that the FAA is likewise beginning to see things a little bit more our way. You heard Steve discuss how seemingly everyone in the world was beating on us. It reminds me of a story they told

us in law school. If you have the facts, beat on the jury. If you have the law, beat

on the judge. If you have neither, beat on the table. Seems like the other side was

beating on us, rather than on the table, because clearly they have neither the facts

nor the law. I am sure Steve thinks our success has something to do with his tenure

as President of USATA. While I certainly will not dispute that, those of you who

have known me in the past have probably noticed that I haven’t devoted much time

to the aircraft noise issue in the last six months or year. I rather suspect that my

absence from the deliberations has been more important in achieving this newfound

harmony. I would remind you of the words of a true statesman and great keynote

addresser, Ronald Reagan: Trust, but verify.

If we are on the threshold of success, as I hope and believe we are, it may be

well to review some of the basics of the science of natural quiet. I have observed,

in my 30 years with government, that the underlying technical or moral correctness

of a particular position is often lost in the chatter of details that necessarily constitute the bureaucratic process. I think it very important that the basic science,

and that is just another way of saying the basic truth, of the overflight noise situation be considered in all of our deliberations and negotiations. For this reason, I am

going to take about 15 minutes of your time, with your kind permission, to talk

about aircraft overflights from the point of view of an engineer who has spent much

of his career dealing with them, from what I hope to have been the scientific viewpoint. I would also like to share a few observations about the folks . . . dare I say

it, on the other side . . . those who vociferously oppose the use of aircraft in any particular corner of the world in which they consider themselves to have a legitimate

special interest. I believe their approach is best described as the ‘‘feeling’’ viewpoint.
72

I hope to show that their position cannot be supported by science, by logic, or even

by politics.

Some people don’t want to hear aircraft ever. Or motorcycles, or rock ’n roll, or

any number of other sounds, which signal an activity of which they disapprove. This

is true, even if they have to strain to hear these sounds. This attitude is certainly

not limited to people who don’t like airplanes. As a motorcyclist, I have seen the

finest off road motorcycling in the world entirely vanish from Southern California,

simply because the people who didn’t like motorcycles were better at mobilizing public opinion than the people who did like them. And noise was a major argument,

though it is hard for me to understand how even the loudest bike 40 miles from

the nearest house, out in the Mojave Desert, could be causing any environmental

damage by its exhaust note. But I digress.

The traditional objections to aircraft overflight noise in such natural areas as the

Grand Canyon or other national parks, and Forest Service wilderness areas, have

been first aimed at the effects of noise on wildlife. The Forest Service studied this

quite closely. Let me quote from the final report summary: ‘‘Studies of the effects

of human intrusions and habitat destruction on animals often find profound impacts

of human activity. It is thus commonly assumed that aircraft overflights are equally

damaging. The literature suggests that animals respond differently to aircraft overflights. Aircraft overflights are startling, but animals can adapt to them very well

under most circumstances. Effects of overflights are subtle because animals adapt

by habituating behaviorally and physiologically to the challenge.’’ Further, ‘‘Studies

of animals of all kinds exposed to noise of all kinds, if scientifically defensible, have

generally revealed that though there may be some temporary disturbance to the

wildlife, in no case that we were able to find has it been established that populations of wildlife have been diminished by aircraft noise.’’

Now this is hard to accept for those who take the ‘‘feeling’’ position because they

are sure that animals, large and small, share their distaste for airplanes. But

science has not yet shown this.

A second concern often voiced is the effect of aircraft overflights on cultural resources, i.e. buildings and ruins. Again, quoting from the Forest Service report,

‘‘Cultural resources in National Forest wilderness are not currently threatened by

sonic booms (likewise, no sonic booms at Grand Canyon). Measurement programs

have been conducted which conclude that there is nominally a minimal risk of damage to structures from light low-flying subsonic jet aircraft and light helicopters.’’

This is not to say tha rotor downwash won’t cause erosion or damage to fragile cultural resources, but at the altitudes that all tour helicopters and airplanes fly, direct

physical damage to ruins and artifacts is simply a scientific impossibility. Of course,

all pilots will want to respect the desires of native Americans with regard to specific

cultural locations, especially when ceremonies or services are being celebrated. But

the feelers often argue ‘‘cultural insensitivity’’ when trying to indict aircraft noise.

Again, no science.

Now another problem of aircraft overflights is that they startle people and animals and therefore compromise safety. It is felt that rock climbers are blasted off

cliffs, horse people are thrown from their mounts, hikers are startled into jumping

into streams, etc. Although many anecdotes have been circulated, careful investigation of all complaints lodged to the Forest Service indicate that such situations have

been extremely isolated. I think two or three people have actually been hurt because

their animals were startled by aircraft and I hasten to add these were not air tour

aircraft but low flying tactical military aircraft. A subdivision of this complaint is

that the health and well being of government employees who have to live around

this awful racket is being impaired. When I was in the good graces of the Park Service, some years ago, they sent me to Hawaii to deal with a noise problem at the

Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. I made some measurements, and interviewed a

large number of employees. Inevitably, the park employees complained not about

the effects on visitors, or even on wildlife, but what they felt about their own comfort and enjoyment while they were going about their work. Well, the levels I measured were greatly below those that the FAA considers even marginally annoying,

and although I don’t always agree with the FAA I do have to thank them for their

support in this. I do not read Public Law 100-91 to include as an effect of aircraft

overflights the acoustic comfort of government employees.

So this brings us to the current argument over natural quiet as a resource. As

we know, the Park Service has the duty, absolutely, to protect natural resources,

to enhance them for this and future generations and to keep them insofar as possible in a pristine and un-human altered condition. This is a laudable goal, and one

which I personally absolutely support. I think I am probably one of the first guys

to consider natural quiet as a separate resource, worthy of scientific assessment. I

started working on this problem in about 1972 when I was at the U.S. Forest Serv-
73

ice Technology and Development Center in San Dimas, and continued doing professional work in this area through my retirement in 1993. I don’t know of anyone who

has made more measurements of noise under wilderness and park conditions than

I have, although my colleagues Paul Dunholter, Dr. Sandy Fidell, and Nick Miller,

and their folks, certainly have a significant number under their belts as well.

I remember a meeting many years ago at Kings Canyon National Park which I

attended at the request of the Park Service. There was concern there about the effects of aircraft overflight on the park, the aircraft being quite a different nature,

Navy tactical jets. I believe that it was at this meeting that I first exposed the Park

Service to the work that Roger Clark, George Stanky, and I had done characterizing

natural quiet as a wilderness resource. I pointed out that the feelings of the listeners were, as far as our research showed, the most important determinant of the

effect of aircraft noise. I must have made quite an impression, because the Superintendent wrote a letter to my boss, his boss, the Chief of the Forest Service, and

the head of the National Park Service, all cordially inviting me never to show my

face on any National Park again. To this day, I have never learned what I said to

so offend him. It may have been his feelings about the fact that I arrived at the

meeting on a brand new bright red Italian motorcycle.

In any event, it is well accepted in wilderness and park science circles that natural quiet should be treated as a natural resource. Given this consensus, it then becomes critical to define natural quiet in a way that is scientifically consistent. As

I am sure most of you know, both the Forest Service and the Park Service have

spent a great deal of time and effort, not to mention your money, in obtaining literally tens of thousands of acoustic measurements throughout the Forest Service

wilderness and National Park systems. With the exception of a few inevitable

glitches, like the time that I kicked Nick Miller’s microphone down the wall of the

crater at Haleakala, the data that was gathered is good. Very good. It is technically

and scientifically unimpeachable. Some of the work done has pushed back the frontiers of outdoor noise measurement technology. I am proud to have been part of that

effort, and will vigorously defend these measurements and how they were made.

However, where and when they were made, and more importantly, how they have

been used, should be scrutinized. We haven’t time to discuss the difficulties with

where and when some of the measurements were made in Grand Canyon. But, how

these measurements are interpreted is of grave concern.

The Park Service and its contractors have suggested a number of different ways

that natural quiet should be defined. My problem with all of them is that they fail

to recognize two basic scientific truths. Everyone has heard the old saw . . . pun intended . . . if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it does it make

a sound? Well, we know from experience that the tree crashing through the

branches to the ground sends out vibrations in the air which propagate away from

the points of contact in a sinusoidal manner, decreasing their strength in accordance

with the inverse square law. In other words, it makes a sound. But does it make

a noise? Ah, here we have a different question. One might pose this question, does

it disturb the natural quiet? Of course it doesn’t, if no human is there to hear the

natural quiet. Since we have established that the sound of the tree falling does not

bother the animals (unless it falls on them of course), nor the cultural resources,

then how could it make a noise?

Let me update this old saw: If a man is walking through the woods and talking

and there is no woman there to hear him, is he still wrong? The scientists among

us would say no. The wrongness of his conversation can only be judged in the ear,

or maybe by the feelings, of the listener. Those who prescribe the feeling view would

insist that the man is wrong anyway, that the natural quiet has been violated, and

certainly our hiker should shut up to restore same.

Whether or not a person hears, and is annoyed by, the sound of an aircraft flying

over is a function of a number of things; how loud the airplane is at the listener’s

ear is only one of these. Equally important is how loud the background sound is;

that is, the rustling of the wind in the trees, the sound of the animals, the sound

of the river. Notice I said equally; I mean equally. Using just the sound of the aircraft to assess natural quiet is scientifically indefensible. Further, the background

of the regular hiking noises, shuffling of feet, brushing of beards against nylon parkas (probably not too many parkas used in Grand Canyon), clanking of canteens,

the noise of pack animals; all of these things contribute to the background which

also determines the natural quiet. With the exception of artillerymen and rock ’n

roll musicians, the loudest thing most of us ever hear is the sound of our own voice

in our ears. This, also, is part of the natural quiet.

And the bias, or motivation, or attitude of the listener is also equally important.

How can it be seriously argued that a professional listener, paid to hear them, is

no more likely than the average hiker or rafter to ‘‘detect’’ an airplane acoustically?
74

Yet this is the method the Park Service used to determine if aircraft sounds are

destroying the natural quiet.

Congress, in its wisdom, did not define natural quiet in Public Law 100-91. Depending on one’s point of view one might logically assume that Congress intended

it to be described scientifically, not with reference to feelings. Defining scientific

problems with reference to feelings has been the source of great mischief. Ask any

apple fammer about the havoc done by that eminent epidemiologist, Meryl Streep,

who was allowed to testify that she felt Alar in apples was endangering our children’s health, etc., etc., etc. I expect that the National Park Service will contend

that it has considered the background sound, self-noise, etc., but with all due respect to my friends there, I don’t see the evidence of this. I do understand that we

are making progress with this position, and to be scientifically correct, we must continue to do so.

The issues of natural quiet in the National Parks are extremely complex. My

viewpoint is admittedly that of an engineer and professional aviator. There will of

course be disagreements over how best to resolve these issues. But my—our—position is supported by good science.

I do not mean to be overly critical of those who take a feeling attitude toward

our magnificent national parks and wildernesses; I have a feeling, maybe almost religious, attitude about flight. I want for us to be able to continue to share the spiritual feelings of seeing our parks from the air with people from all over the world.

I want as many people as possibly can to fly above our parks and wildernesses to

enjoy them and to feel them and hold them, without, I might add, causing the

slightest environmental impact to the parks. It thrills me to hear that things are

looking better, because it would be both scientifically and morally wrong for our industry to be limited or eliminated by feelings about natural quiet and aircraft sound

that are neither scientifically nor morally supportable.

Thank you so much.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. LYNCH, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, CENTRAL ARIZONA

PROJECT ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman, Members of the National Parks and Public Lands Subcommittee,

thank you for the opportunity to appear here today and testify on the proposal of

the National Park Service to designate the Grand Canyon National Park as a wilderness and the implications of that proposal for the Colorado River, the Service’s

Colorado River Management Plan, the Law of the River, and the Central Arizona

Project. I have the pleasure of serving as Chairman of the Board of the Central Arizona Project Association, an Arizona non-profit association established in 1946 to

promote authorization, construction and operation of the Central Arizona Project.

Our Association membership represents business, resource, local government and

agricultural interests throughout the State interested in the continued success of

the Central Arizona Project.

The Project itself consists of over 300 miles of canal system and a regulating reservoir that provides an average of 1.5 million acre-feet of water annually to roughly

two-thirds of the population of the State, industries, agriculture and Indian communities in central Arizona. That quantity of water represents over half of the entitlement of the State of Arizona to water from the Colorado River and some 20 percent

of the entitlement of the three Lower Basin states (Arizona, California and Nevada)

to water from the Colorado River.

Our interest in the draft Wilderness Management Plan stems from our concerns

about water issues related to the Colorado River. Simply put, the Central Arizona

Project is the last water right on the river. Anything that can or might affect its

ability to take water from the river and deliver it to the citizens of central Arizona

attracts our interest. This draft Wilderness Plan is one of those things.

WATER ISSUES

There is an ongoing dispute over whether designation of public land as a wilderness carries with it an implied reservation of water rights under the so-called Winters doctrine. This remains an unanswered question in Federal law. It is a hot topic

and it is currently being litigated. Most recently, a trial court in Idaho issued an

opinion in a water adjudication that the Wilderness Act has the effect of impliedly

reserving water. In re SRBA, Case no. 39576 DC Idaho, 5th Judicial District, December 18, 1997. That case is on appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court. Obviously,

the opinion of a state court in Idaho does not bind the United States but it is the

United States in the person of a Justice Department attorney that is promoting the

reserved rights claim.
75

Translated to Arizona and the Lower Colorado River, you can easily see why we

are interested. Designation of the Colorado River as ‘‘potential wilderness’’ positions

the Service to manage the river corridor as if it were wilderness and precurses the

ultimate designation of the river corridor as wilderness. If that intent remains, then

the consequences of that clearly visible future action must be included in the

present plan and the present environmental analysis. Along the way, the Service

will have to address the reserved water rights issue and become educated in what

we call the Law of the River. The Law of the River is a collection of compacts, Supreme Court and other court decisions, Acts of Congress and other Federal actions

that define the rights of the Basin states to this invaluable resource. The river is

also impacted by the 1944 Treaty with Mexico which obligates the system to specified water deliveries and, under certain circumstances, to surplus water deliveries.

How a new reserved water right might affect this complex legal system must be

analyzed. Anything less would be a piecemeal and inappropriate application of relevant Federal law.

DRAFT WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

I have reviewed the Draft Wilderness Management Plan for the Grand Canyon

National Park and its accompanying Environmental Assessment. This is a significant new initiative for the Park and one that deserves careful and detailed consideration. It is a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human

environment under the National Environmental Policy Act and it is an action that

requires consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Consultation

under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is also required. As you

will note from my comments below, I believe that consultation under the 1968

Lower Colorado River Basin Project Act and consultation under the 1992 Grand

Canyon Protection Act are also required. Given these requirements, I think it is incumbent upon the National Park Service to factor in the comments they are receiving, publish a revised Draft Plan as a proposed action and begin the formal processes that NEPA and ESA require. Other consultations can be programmed to coincide with those processes. I have the following specific comments in this regard.

Scope of the Plan

On page 2 of the Executive Summary, the Service attempts to set aside the

riverine corridor of the Colorado River as covered by the Colorado River Management Plan, which it later tells us will be amended to be consistent with this Plan.

The Service also tells us that it is proposing the Colorado River corridor as a potential wilderness in this Plan. Then it attempts to end the discussion by saying that

issues specific to river management will be addressed in that specific Plan and are

not within the purview of this Plan. That is just not true. If the Service is going

to conform the river plan to this Plan, then it is impacting that Plan now and making changes to it now.

On page 4, the Service tells us that, among the proposed actions included in this

Plan is one to ‘‘develop methods for determining suitability of the Colorado River

and its tributaries for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers system.’’ In

spite of that being a part of this Plan, the Service acknowledges that it has not consulted with the basin states, water users and water user organizations, power users

and power user organizations or river recreation interests.

Wild and Scenic Rivers designation also implicates water use and the Law of the

River. Consultation under the 1968 and 1992 Acts is mandatory. The rights to Colorado River water, including Central Arizona Project water supplies, cannot be implicated in this Plan’s intended process without such consultation. The hydropower resources of the river, specifically Glen Canyon Dam, cannot be implicated here without such consultation.

Finally, on page 5 of this Executive Summary, the Service acknowledges that this

Plan will provide ‘‘specific direction for revising other Park management plans consistent with the wilderness management requirements.’’ In other words, the decision-making will take place in the context of development of this Plan and the Colorado River Management Plan will then merely be conformed to it. Clearly, issues

related to the Colorado River in its course through the Grand Canyon National Park

are as much a part of this Plan as issues related to terrestrial and riparian management elsewhere in the Park.

These conclusions drawn from the Executive Summary are confirmed at various

places in the draft Plan itself, including pages 2-20, 16-158, 16-159, 16-160, 16-161,

the latter pages including the implementation schedule. Additionally, the discussion

of the National Environmental Policy Act attempts to glide over the ‘‘major Federal

action’’ issue (draft Plan, pp. 2-16 and 2-17). It cannot. This is a major undertaking

that will have significant long-term consequences for the Grand Canyon National
76

Park. Its environmental screening requirements cannot merely be shoved aside for

another day when site-specific issues come up.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

On its face, this document is inadequate. The purpose of an environmental assessment is to form the basis for either deciding to do an environmental impact statement or prepare a Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI). This document does

not do that. It provides no basis for testing the NEPA threshold of whether the proposed plan is a ‘‘major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the

human environment.’’ Merely describing the benefits of the Plan as the National

Park Service sees it is not adequate. The question is whether or not there will be

major impacts, not whether they will be beneficial in the eyes of the writing agency.

Nor has the Environmental Assessment properly identified the use of the NEPA

process. This is a classic example of when a programmatic EIS is prepared. On page

3 of the EA, the Service acknowledges that more NEPA and other screening will

be necessary for specific projects. The implication is that this significant Plan will

see no further screening under NEPA, ESA or NHPA. There is no attempt to analyze why the Plan might not require an EIS.

The EIS requirement would be met, in and by itself, by the statement on page

7 of the EA concerning the Colorado River portion of the Park:

‘‘The Colorado River Management Plan revision will address implementing wilderness management requirements and strategies within the ‘‘proposed potential’’ wilderness river corridor.’’

The Service has already acknowledged that the criteria for a proposed Wild and

Scenic River designation will be set in this Plan, and acknowledged that it will set

the criteria for river corridor wilderness designation in this Plan. Now it admits

that the river plan changes will merely implement these prior decisions. If the decisions are made here, the EIS is done here. The dialogue must be expanded to cover

the water and power resources the Colorado River supplies. Moreover, the importance of the corridor is acknowledged on page 10 of the EA. Endangered species involvement along the river corridor is acknowledged on page 11. Nevertheless, these

subjects are not discussed in any assessment ot environmental impacts in the EA.

Oddly enough, the actions in the proposed Plan related to proposed designation

of the Colorado River as a Wild and Scenic River are described but not analyzed

in the discussion of the impacts related to the preferred alternative (the draft Plan):

‘‘This alternative calls for conducting an inventory of all tributary streams to

quantify flow data and riparian vegetation. It provides for adopting methods for

determining suitability of the Colorado River and its tributaries for inclusion in

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, ultimately providing an additional

protective layer for these rare, intact environments.’’

Not only is this an impact, it is stated as a foregone conclusion. Yet another reason the proposed Plan is a major Federal action.

Other discussions of the proposed action clearly show that this Plan will deal with

the river corridor, administrative practices and the like (page 17). Indeed, Service

patrols which now rely on motorized watercraft are identified as probably having

to go to non-motorized watercraft as a result of this Plan (page 17). That is an obvious river impact. It also raises the issue of whether commercial and non-commercial

permit users will have to do likewise. Yet another river corridor impact. That same

discussion is continued on page 18.

Moreover, significant use impacts are totally missing from this analysis. Nowhere

in the discussion of visitor use, use of horses and mules or other visitor use is there

any discussion of the additional pressure that will be put on the Park from the constraints of current uses that this Plan envisions. There is no discussion of limiting

visitors. The additional pressure put on the Park by allowing the same number or

more visitors while constraining the current opportunities for experience must be

analyzed.

In addition, there is no mention of the proposed development at Tusayan and how

that increased population at the edge of the Park will impact wilderness management. Additionally, the Draft Plan at page 2-16 states that ‘‘mechanized or motorized equipment is inappropriate for public purposes like recreation, education, or

scientific study that is not serving administrative purposes.’’ That statement, if an

appropriate application of the Wilderness Act of 1964, would remove from the Grand

Canyon Monitoring Research Center the ability to use its mechanized pontoon boats

for scientific study. The scientific study is related to the effects of power operations

at Glen Canyon Dam and not to administrative purposes related to the Wilderness

Act.

Finally, I wish to bring up an issue that just caught my attention last week. The

Draft Plan (p.2-16) briefly mentions the Americans with Disabilities Act. It con-
77

cludes that people in wheelchairs can use their wheelchairs in a wilderness but the

Park Service doesn’t have to do anything to help them. In the normal case of going

out in the middle of nowhere, that sort of statement might make sense. But it

doesn’t here. I was curious and asked around. I found that the Phoenix Parks and

Recreation Department supports a specific program for people with disabilities so

they can go on river trips and have access to places like the river corridor of the

Grand Canyon. Indeed, I am told that the river running companies must include

in permit renewal applications a specific program for providing access to people otherwise protected by the ADA. I don’t know if taking motors off the river will totally

bar disabled access to river running, but obviously it will limit it. The point is that

this is a serious concern and passed over in the Draft Plan and the Environmental

Assessment. Yet another reason this is a major Federal action. I have take the liberty of including some materials I acquired only last week about this interesting

and worthwhile program for people with disabilities. Having just recently been on

a river trip myself, I was fascinated by this obviously worthwhile program.

SUMMARY

The Service needs to start the EIS process as soon as possible. It bands to expand

the stated scope of the Plan to cover the riverine corridor and to open a dialogue

with the affected interests that enlarged scope will draw into the process. The Service needs to expand the analysis of the Plan to include the additional subjects commenters have brought to its attention.

The Grand Canyon National Park is too important to the country and to the park

system to have an overarching plan like this assembled largely out of public view.

This Plan deserves more public scrutiny than it has gotten and the Park Service

should be diligent in seeing that public scrutiny occurs.

Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity

to comment on this very important National Park Service initiative.
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85

STATEMENT OF BRIAN I. MERRILL, CHIEF OF OPERATIONS, WESTERN RIVER

EXPEDITIONS, INC.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity

to represent Western River Expeditions in your consideration of the Grand Canyon

Wilderness Management Plan and the Colorado River Management Plan. Western

River Expeditions is one of the original whitewater rafting companies in Grand Canyon (established in 1959) and has been managed under current ownership since

1977. We also operate in Canyonlands National Park, Westwater Canyon, and Desolation Canyon in Utah.

We very much appreciate the attention this Subcommittee is giving to Grand Canyon. My comments today address the specific effects the proposed Wilderness and

Colorado River Management plans will have on my employer, Western River Expeditions. Although Mark Grisham, Executive Director of the Grand Canyon River

Outfitters Association, has been called to testify on behalf of all Grand Canyon

River Outfitters, I hope my comments will also paint an accurate picture of the concerns expressed by our colleagues.

In our opinion, the Colorado River corridor through the bottom of Grand

Canyon National Park should be specifically designated as a non-wilderness corridor. It should not be included as part of a comprehensive wilderness recommendation for Grand Canyon and should not be left as ‘‘potential wilderness’’ as the National Park Service currently has it listed.

WILDERNESS VALUES?

As Grand Canyon Outfitters, we are dealing with two different processes here.

The Grand Canyon Wilderness Management Plan which is actually the renamed

Backcountry Management Plan and the Colorado River Management Plan which

deals only with the river corridor through the bottom of Grand Canyon. The former

deals with the bulk of the land and the latter the river, its banks and side canyons.

Park officials want to manage the entire park as wilderness whether or not it carries official wilderness designation. Most of the backcountry area is proposed for full

wilderness status. The cross-canyon corridor (the area including Phantom Ranch

and the trails that lead to it from either canyon rim) is proposed as non-wilderness.

The river is proposed as ‘‘potential’’ wilderness. Potential wilderness is a National

Park Service term that requires the Park to manage the river as wilderness thereby

eliminating ‘‘non-conforming uses’’ such as helicopters and outboard engines.

The proposed new Colorado River Management Plan (CRMP) has as its core, ‘‘wilderness management.’’ It was the stated intention of the Park to defer the wilderness question on the river to the CRMP. They did not want the controversy involved

with the motors/no motors issue to bog down the overall wilderness recommendation. Pressure from environmental groups and Congress are making them deal with

the issue of wilderness on the river now rather than later.

All of the issues being discussed by the Park are colored by ‘‘wilderness values,’’

as those values are perceived by those drafting the plan. For example, if the NPS

planners decide to reduce the size of group that can travel together from the current

number of 36 to 20, it will be because people cannot have a ‘‘true wilderness experience’’ in any group larger than 20. If the ability of people to spend just three days

seeing part of the canyon is eliminated, it will be because the NPS feels a true ‘‘wilderness experience’’ cannot be had in a short amount of time.

So far, no scientific evidence has been presented indicating that any of the proposed changes are necessary. Likewise, the visitors who are using outfitters to access the resource are not complaining. There is general agreement on the part of

everyone involved, including the Park managers, that the river corridor is in better

shape today than it was 20 years ago. This appears to be crisis management where

no crisis exists.

Outfitters are placed in an interesting position. Our actions show that we are ardent protectors of Grand Canyon and its river corridor. In our hearts, we hold wilderness values and are concerned about protection of the resource. Outfitters have

always been on the cutting edge, if not the actual inventors, of most of the low-impact camping technologies used by responsible campers everywhere. The National

Park Service has taken our innovations and integrated them into their rules and

regulations. We are in the canyon every week and would be insane to behave any

differently. However, we are placed in opposition to many environmental organizations. These organizations take extreme positions with regard to motors, trip

lengths, group sizes, and other issues that severely limit the general public’s ability

to see Grand Canyon from the river.
86

ACCESS TO GRAND CANYON

Millions of Americans access national parks each year, and Grand Canyon is one

of the most popular of all the parks in the system. Of the millions who visit Grand

Canyon annually, merely 20,000 of them get to do it from the bottom on the river.

It is a unique and wonderful experience, and any outfitter can relate tale after tale

of individuals whose lives have been changed by a Grand Canyon river trip of any

length or type.

For years outfitters have been the means by which most of the visitors access the

Colorado River through Grand Canyon. Western River Expeditions has been there

from the early days of outfitting and has developed a loyal following and a solid reputation for providing high quality trips which can be enjoyed by a wide variety of

people of varying abilities and ages. If you can judge from the comments of our

guests, we do a tremendous job.

Plain and simply, if the river corridor through Grand Canyon is given wilderness

status or if the Park achieves its clearly stated goal of managing the river as wilderness (even without wilderness status), the amount of people who access the river

through our company will immediately be cut by more than half. If the worst case

scenario occurs, fully three fourths of our passengers will be kept out of the canyon.

Statistics for the entire industry will be presented by Mr. Grisham and are equally

grim.

MOTORIZED RAFTS IN GRAND CANYON: A QUESTION OF ACCESS

Motorized rafts are seen as a ‘‘non-conforming use’’ when it comes to wilderness.

When managing for wilderness, motors have to be eliminated. There is precedent

for allowing motors even in a wilderness. The Frank Church/River of No Return

Wilderness in Idaho is the prime example. It is managed by the National Forest

Service, and the Wilderness Act grants specific power to the Secretary of Agriculture

to authorize such a use. It is not clear, however, that the Secretary of the Interior

has the same authority. This point would have to be settled legally. The cleaner option is to simply eliminate the river corridor from the wilderness recommendation.

This will not be the first time the issue of outboard motors on the Colorado River

in Grand Canyon has been debated. In the late 1970’s the Park decided to eliminate

motors from the river and backed off after pressure from Congress. Many members

of this Committee were active in that effort and still deserve our gratitude. Amazingly enough, 20 years later, we are right back here debating the same issues of

access, and who deserves to be in Grand Canyon.

The Grand Canyon Wilderness Planning Team which is responsible for the plans

being discussed here today, has as one of its primary goals keeping the level of contacts between users to a minimum. Motorized rafts provide flexibility when coordinating with other river users. Guides discuss potential stops and campsites with

each other, and the motorized rafts are able to adjust their pace accordingly. This

one element, cooperation between the guides is the single best method for reducing

contacts in the canyon. They are already doing a stellar job.

If motors are eliminated from Grand Canyon, the number of contacts between

groups will sharply increase due to the need for so many oar-powered rafts. Motorized rafts and the larger groups they accommodate, require far fewer campsites. It

follows that as the number of contacts increase because of the larger number of oar

rafts, NPS planners will then want to reduce overall use even further to reduce the

number of contacts. The estimates of reduction in access presented by Mr. Grisham

and me today may represent merely the tip of the iceberg.

Motorized rafts on the Colorado River through Grand Canyon are necessary and appropriate.

• Wilderness will reduce access to Grand Canyon dramatically. Roughly

75 percent of all commercial passengers choose to traverse Grand Canyon on

a motorized raft each year. If oar power boats are the only option, appoximately

half of these people will not get to go.

• Wilderness will reduce access for people with physical disabilities. Individuals with mobility and sensory impairment, older people in their 70’s and

80’s, and families with younger children often choose the larger motorized rafts

because they are more comfortable and perceived to be safer.

• Wilderness will require a far greater number of watercraft to provide

the same access. To replace all motorized rafts on the river with oar rafts

while providing the same level of access, the number of rafts on the river at

any one time would have to increase by an estimated 500 percent. The next step

would be to reduce that number of rafts thereby reducing access even further.

• Wilderness will actually create more contact between groups. Two oar

trips passing one another can take half a day. Motorized rafts pass relatively
87

quickly. When the level of contacts increases, the NPS managers will be compelled to cut use and reduce access.

• Wilderness will arguably create more impact on the land portion of

the canyon. With a motor, a group can travel faster allowing plenty of time

for hiking and exploring, but the amount of camping that occurs is nearly half

of that of a rowing trip. More rowing trips means more time spent on the land,

therefore more impact. Again, the logical next step would be to decrease use

and reduce access.

The Grand Canyon outfitting industry is actively working toward limiting if not eliminating the noise caused by outboard motors. Historically, 2-

cycle outboard motors have been used to power rafts through Grand Canyon. Quieter and cleaner outboard motor technology is now available and the industry has voluntarily agreed to convert 100 percent to these motors by the year 2001. One hundred percent of Western River Expeditions’ boats will be using the new engines by

the start of the 1999 river season. These engines are substantially quieter. Many

oar powered rafters have reported that they can barely hear them as they pass.

Another effort being spearheaded by the Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association is the development of a practically noiseless and emission free electric engine

which is powered by fuel-cell technology.

There is a false perception put out by extreme wilderness advocates and some

Park officials that anything less than wilderness status will result in the proliferation of motor use on the river. This is simply false. Motor use has not increased

since the last attempt to eliminate them and it will not in the future. Outfitter efforts to find less and less obtrusive technology, and well-established National Park

Service limits also point away from proliferation.

HELICOPTERS AND EXCHANGE TRIPS:

ANOTHER QUESTION OF ACCESS

Western River Expeditions provides two basic trips through Grand Canyon. You

can spend six days travelling from Lee’s Ferry to Whitmore Wash (188 River Miles)

or three days travelling from Whitmore Wash to Pearce Ferry on Lake Mead (91

River Miles, 89 of which are within Grand Canyon National Park). At Whitmore,

there is a helicopter landing pad located on Hualapai Nation land. The guests from

the six-day trip helicopter out to a guest ranch on the rim of the canyon (the Bar

10 Lodge) and the three day guests helicopter in to begin their trip. Many of our

guests spend a day and a night at the ranch before beginning the river portion of

the trip. There they participate in ranch activities and listen to interpretation about

Grand Canyon.

Whitmore has been used as a river access point since 1912. Since 1978, it has

been an approved passenger exchange point. Helicopters at Whitmore have been in

use since 1985. As early as 1973, there was helicopter use at another pad near Lava

Falls (10 miles upstream), but the outfitters voluntarily eliminated that use and

consolidated at Whitmore.

The Bar 10 Lodge is owned and operated by the Tony and Ruby Heaton family.

It gives employment to the Heaton children as well as providing a $100,000 yearly

payroll to other employees. In addition, since 1985, the Bar 10 has added over one

million dollars ($1,000,000) of user fee revenue to the Hualapai Tribe. A twelve dollar ($12.00) fee is charged by the Hualapai for each person in or out of the canyon.

The elimination of Whitmore would not only limit river access; it would put the

Heatons out of business, and eliminate this source of revenue for the Hualapai.

Whitmore is a critical element in the CRMP and in the overall effort to manage

Grand Canyon as wilderness. The Park has stated that the exchanges taking place

at Whitmore are incompatible with ‘‘wilderness values’’ for two reasons. One: Helicopters disturb the natural quiet, and are incompatible with the ‘‘no mechanical devices’’ requirement of wilderness management; and Two: Three days is not enough

time for a person to adequately enjoy and appreciate Grand Canyon.

The debate over helicopters and the noise they make is not nearly as simple as

it seems when you consider the alternatives and the numbers of people who will be

shut out of the Canyon. The arguments against shorter trip lengths are quite frankly offensive.

Wilderness values are in the heart and mind of the beholder. In meetings

with Grand Canyon officials outfitters have been told point blank that some people

do not deserve to be in Grand Canyon. Usually, this sort of elitist rhetoric is attributed to fringe elements who would shut everyone out of the backcountry except

themselves. So when the very people who are the arbiters of what is fair and appropriate for the river use this exclusionary type of language it causes a great deal of

concern.
88

We have been told the river through Grand Canyon will be managed as part of

a ‘‘regional’’ system of rivers that would include the Green and San Juan rivers in

Utah as well as the upper stretches of the Colorado in Utah (Westwater and Cataract Canyons). Under this approach people wanting a shorter river trip would have

to go to Cataract Desolation or some other ‘‘less deserving’’ stretch of water. We are

told that Grand Canyon should be reserved for those people who are willing to

spend the appropriate amount of time (8 days with a motor and 13 days without

seem to be the minimum numbers). Apparently this will assure that everyone who

travels through the Canyon has the proper attitude and reverence toward the Canyon. I am not being facetious here. I am simply repeating the ideas that have been

expressed to us by NPS administrators.

This attitude runs contra to the experience had by the thousands of people who

enjoy Grand Canyon every year through Western River Expeditions or one of several other outfitters. These guests do it in a short amount of time in the lower end

of the Canyon. We can produce thousands of letters from our guests who have had

meaningful even life changing Grand Canyon experiences in merely three days.

These people believe in their hearts and minds that they have had a valid wilderness experience. Park officials and other extreme wilderness advocates apparently

want to save these people from themselves. Now I am being facetious but also accurate.

Whitmore is not the only place where shorter exchange trips occur although it is

the only place where helicopters are used. The Park has also identified the need to

reduce the frequency of exchanges at other points in the Canyon such as Phantom

Ranch. Exchange trips provide an increased opportunity for people to access Grand

Canyon from the river. Not everyone can afford the time or the cost involved with

a longer trip. Are these people undeserving of Grand Canyon? According to some

within the NPS the answer is ‘‘yes.’’

Helicopters provide a clean and efficient means for people to access the

lower end of Grand Canyon. One of the primary goals of those writing the CRMP

seems to be the elimination or extreme reduction of Whitmore as an exchange point.

There have been references to possible alternatives to helicopters such as hiking and

mules. Both of these solutions would lead to the elimination of Whitmore because

of the logistical difficulties they present.

Many of the people who currently exit and enter the canyon via helicopter would

not be physically capable of hiking in or out of the canyon. It is a difficult hike in

one of the hottest parts of the canyon where there is no water or shade. Our customer demographics mirror the demographics of the nation in general. People are

getting older and not everyone is in top physical condition. Roughly two-thirds of

our guests are age 50 or older with some in their 80’s. Hiking would create a physical barrier that would keep many people from seeing the canyon. The Park already

struggles with the number of people who have to be rescued from the trails leading

to Phantom Ranch. Dehydration and physical injury are commonplace.

The option of transporting guests in and out of the canyon via mules is ironically

more environmentally damaging than helicopters. To further the irony, mules were

once used and helicopters were seen as a cleaner, more efficient approach, so we

switched. Hundreds of mules travelling up and down the trail and milling around

on a beach on the edge of the river would result in scarring of the landscape, offensive odors, and swarms of flies. Phantom Ranch can be held out as an example of

the difficulties presented by mules. There are an equal number of people calling for

their elimination from the Park.

The outfitters who use helicopters at Whitmore are not insensitive to the wishes

of those who would prefer not to see a helicopter in the canyon. The time of helicopter operation is restricted to the morning hours and the actual time the helicopters are over Park airspace is measured in minutes (2.76 minutes per flight to

be exact). We believe this is a very small amount of time relative to the access it

provides.

At a recent meeting of a working group of outfitters who use the helicopter pad,

means of reducing total airtime were discussed with promising results. We are also

investigating quieter, larger capacity helicopter technology that would reduce dramatically the noise levels as well as the number of trips in and out of the canyon.

The helicopter pad is actually located on land owned by the Hualapai Nation and

is located in a part of the canyon where there are very few camps, and very little

morning traffic. The bottom line is that most of the people who do not use the helicopters never see or hear them. Those visitors who do use them, love them.

FOR WHOM ARE WE SAVING THE CANYON?

If I can brag a bit about our crew, they are as good as it gets in the industry.

We have a group of trip leaders and guides who have been doing this for a long
89

1 (Freeman Tilden, 1951, The National Parks. Alfred A. Knopf, NY.)

time, are passionate about the river and the canyon, and love sharing their knowledge and skills with their guests. Without guides, most people would not have the

skills or knowledge to visit the bottom of Grand Canyon. For those who do choose

to use a guide, their experience is enriched through the education and insight provided. Any outfitter in Grand Canyon can make this same claim.

As an industry, the Park has left us with the distinct impression that people who

choose to utilize our services and the talents of our guides are less worthy than

those who go it alone. Furthermore, if they choose an outfitter, but don’t choose the

right kind of trip, they are even less worthy. The fact is that most people cannot

make it through Grand Canyon by river without the assistance of an outfitter. Likewise, a large percentage of these people cannot afford to spend more than just a few

days in the canyon. Grand Canyon is for these people just as surely as it is for the

individual who wants to spend a month in the canyon on his/her own raft. To believe otherwise is elitist and offensive.

We should be about preserving Grand Canyon and providing access. The National

Park Service is charged with a dual mission: preserve for future generations and

provide access to the American public. That mission is currently being accomplished

very well. A relatively large number of people get to experience the Colorado River

through Grand Canyon each year with no detrimental effect to the resource.

Once again, It is our firm belief that THE COLORADO RIVER THROUGH

GRAND CANYON SHOULD BE LISTED AS A NON-WILDERNESS CORRIDOR.

Protections that are already in place are more than adequate, and Grand Canyon

users (both commercial and private) will always be committed to its protection regardless of the wilderness debate. Any increased regulation will only result in

people being shut out of Grand Canyon.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for your time and

consideration of Grand Canyon, and thank you for letting us participate in this process

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. REFFALT, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARKS AND ALASKA PROGRAMS, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY AND REPRESENTING THE GRAND CANYON TRUST

‘‘The river rolls by us in silent majesty; the quiet of the camp is sweet;

our joy is almost ecstasy.’’ (John Wesley Powell, 1869, as he and his companions completed exploration of the Colorado River and the Grand Canyon)

Mr. Chairman my name is Bill Reffalt; I am Director of National Parks and Alaska Lands for The Wilderness Society. I appreciate this opportunity to testify on behalf of our 225,OOO members and The Grand Canyon Trust about the current National Park Service management planning efforts at the Grand Canyon National

Park.

The Grand Canyon, as a geological phenomenon, is one of the most awesome demonstrations of the effects of erosion over time in the world. As a National Park, it

is one of the world’s most spectacular scenic areas. These characteristics, and many

other features and elements combine to make the Grand Canyon one of the most

visited parks, and visiting it among the most sought after experiences in the world.

We only have one Grand Canyon and it took a very, very long time for it to reach

the peak of grandeur for which all mankind recognizes it. Over 5,000,000 people

visit the park each year and that level continues to rise.

The Grand Canyon is one of the most unique, and in many ways grandest, wilderness areas left in America. Yes, there are other great canyons, and some are very

scenic and have several special features. But, there is only this one that has it all.

To stand at the rim of the Grand Canyon and try to take it all in, to cope with its

meaning, is a humbling experience. Standing on the rim at many locations one can

literally see to the heart of this magnificent National Park. And, at the heart of this

wilderness is the Colorado River—Mother Nature’s Grand Canyon land-sculpting instrument. Freeman Tilden has written that ‘‘Without that flowing river there is no

true Grand Canyon.’’1 It follows logically that management of the Park must deal

effectively with these two foundational elements of the park: the wilderness and the

river.

Management of the Grand Canyon National Park is something about which a lot

of people can claim to be an interested stakeholder. Hundreds, even thousands, feel

that they have a right and an obligation to be involved and to be heard. In its simplest form, the management planning process currently underway at the Grand

Canyon National Park grants fulfillment of that expectation. It supplies the Park
90

Service with the concerns, opinions, ideas and reactions of people who know and use

the park and its resources. It permits interested parties with differing points of view

to learn about other views and serves as a forum for making known all viewpoints.

It is a time-tested process that can lead to greater understanding and support for

park programs.

We believe that the National Park Service policy guidance on planning and wilderness properly reflects the spirit and intent of the Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-

577; 16 U.S.C. 1131-1136). We also believe that the Grand Canyon National Park

staff has made a well-founded, reasoned and positive effort to provide all stakeholders with the necessary information and an opportunity to respond to management proposals and concepts within the context of the administering laws. The complexities of the legal structure and the changes in park legislation, boundaries, relationships to tribal neighbors, and type and magnitude of visitor usage over the past

20 years bring potential need for changes to past proposals and potential new issues

into the management picture. For these reasons, among others, we recognize the

need for this public planning effort and we are committed, along with many other

stakeholder groups, to participating openly and constructively in that process.

We believe that it is important for the future management programs to be discussed between and among the stakeholders in the context of their impacts upon

various visitors and their park experience. It is important that the 94 percent of the

Park recommended to Congress for wilderness designation has an up-to-date, well

designed and cohesive management strategy known and understood by the people

affected by such designation. And, we believe that the interested public deserves to

have this opportunity for input and deserves to have their identified concerns and

ideas addressed by the park’s professional staff.

As we have said recently in a letter to all members of this Committee, we believe

that it would be premature for Members of Congress to initiate legislative actions

affecting individual elements of the management issues being considered prior to

completion of the final Wilderness Management Plan and Colorado River Management Plan. Intervention prior to completion of those plans would, in our view, be

counterproductive. Ultimately, the final decisions about wilderness designation, its

integration with river management, Wild and Scenic River designation and related

matters will rest with this Committee and the Congress. Those decisions can be

aided and improved by the proper completion of the process now underway at the

park.

There are several other important issues and Administrative processes occurring

in and around Grand Canyon National Park. For example, we and others continue

to be involved in the issues associated with the regulation of air tour overflights.

We are deeply concerned about deterioration in major components of the park infrastructure and the urgent need for vastly improved mass transit to the park and a

well planned and executed people-mover system within the park. Although I have

elected to focus this testimony on the wilderness and river management planning

as suggested in the Committee’s invitation to testify, I would be happy, to the extent

that I have sufficient background and information, to respond on behalf of The Wilderness Society to questions on other matters affecting future park management

and visitor experience.

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to comment on matters affecting this important icon of America’s National Park System.
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
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166