B

^SJ AIRPORTS AT NATIONAL PARKS

government V\

Storage

H E A R IN G S

BEFO RE T H E

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION 

AND AERONAUTICS

OF T H E

COMMITTEE ON

INT ERSTA TE ANI) FOR EIGN COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIV ES

EIGHTY -NINTH CONG RESS

SE CO ND SE SS IO N

ON

H.R. 11089

A B IL L TO AM EN D T H E AC T APP ROVED MA RC H 18, 1050, PR OVID IN G FO R T H E CO NST RU CT IO N O F A IR PORTS IN OR IN 

CL OS E PROX IM IT Y TO NAT IO NAL PA RK S, NA TION AL MO NUME NT S, AN D NATI ONAL REC REATIO N AR EA S, AN D FO R 

O TH ER PU RPO SE S

SEPTEM BER 27 AN D OCT OB ER 3, 1966

P ri nte d fo r th e us e of th e C om m itt ee on In te rs ta te an d For ei gn C om merc e 

jl

Serial No. 89-51

69-561

U.S . GO VE RN MEN T PR IN TIN G O FFIC E 

WAS HI NG TO N : 1966
H “

CO MMIT TE E ON IN TE RS TA TE AN D FO RE IGN CO MM ER CE

H A R L E Y O. ST A G G ER S, West Virginia, Chairman

W A LTE R RO GE RS , Texas

SAM U EL N . F R IE D E L, Maryland 

T O R B E R T H. M ACD ON ALD, Massachusetts 

JOHN J ARM AN , Oklahoma

LE O W. O’B RIE N , New York

JOHN E. MOSS, California

JOH N I). DI NG ELL , Michigan

PAU L G. RO GE RS , Florida

H ORAC E R. K O R N E G A Y, North Carolina 

LI O N EL VAN D E ER LIN , California 

J. J. P IC K LE , Texas

F R E D B. ROONEY, Pennsylvania 

JOH N M. M U RPH Y, New York 

DAVI D E. SA T TE R F IE LD III, Virginia 

D A N IE L J. RO NA N, Illinois 

J. OL IV A HUO T, New Hampshire 

JA M ES A . M A C K A Y , Georgia 

JOHN J. GIL LIG AN , Ohio

CH A RLE S P. F A R N SLE Y , Kentucky

JOHN B E L L W IL LI AM S, Mississippi

B R O CK A D AM S, Washington

W. E. Williamson, Clerk

K enn eth J. P ain ter, Assistant Clerk

Andrew Stevenson

K urt B orchardt

Professiona l Sta ff

W IL LIA M L. SPR IN G ER, Illinois 

J. A R TH U R YO U N G ER, California 

SA M U EL L. D E V IN E , Ohio 

A N C H E R N ELS EN , Minnesota 

H AST IN GS K E IT H , Massachusetts 

W IL LA R D S. CU R TIN , Pennsylvan ia 

GLE NN CU N NIN GH AM , Nebraska 

JA M ES T . B R O YH IL L, North Carolina 

JA M ES H A R V E Y , Michigan 

A L B E R T W. W AT SO N, South Caro lina 

TIM LEE C A R T E R , Ken tuc ky

James M. Menger, Jr.

William J. Dixon

S ubcom m it tee on T r a n spo r ta tio n a nd Aer o n a u tic s

SA M UE L N. F R IE D E L , Maryland, Chairman

JOHN D. D IN G E L L , Michigan 

J. J. P IC K L E , Texas 

D A N IE L J. RONAN , Illinois 

J. OLI VA H U OT, New Hampshire 

JOHN B E L L WILL IAMS , Mississippi

SA M UE L L. D EV IN E, Ohio 

G LEN N CU NNIN GH AM , Nebraska 

A L B E R T W. W AT SO N, South Carolina

n
C O N T E N T S

Hearings held on— Page

September 27, 1966_________________ _____ ___ ____ _______ 1

Report of—

Air Force, Department of the________________________________ 3

Budget, Bureau of th e________________________________ ~~~~~~ 1

Federal Aviation Agency______________________________ ” __ 3

Interior, Department of the_____________________________ 2

Statem ent of—

Baker, Howard W., Assistant Director of Operations, National Park 

Service, Department of the Interior_________________________ 7 15

Bowers, Chester G., Deputy Director, Airport Service, Federal ’ 

Aviation Agency_____________________________________ _ 5

Johnson, Hon Harold T., a Representative in Congress from the

State of California_______________________________________ 13

Olsen, Hon. Arnold, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Montana________________________________________ __ 4

h i

AIRPORTS AT NATIONAL PARKS

TUESD A Y , SE P T E M B E R 27 , 19 66

H ou se of R e pr e se n t a t iv e s,

S ubcom m it tee on T ransp orta ti on an d A er o n a u tic s

of t h e C om m it tee on I n ter sta te an d F o reig n C om m er ce,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., purusant to call, in room 2123, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Samuel N. Friedel (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. Friedel. The meeting now will come to order.

The Subcommittee on Transpo rtation and Aeronautics meets today 

to consider H.R . 11089.

First I would like to make a brief statement about that. The 

Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics will consider H.R. 

11089, which provides for the construction of airports in or in close 

proximity to the national parks, national monuments, and national 

recreation areas.

This bill was introduced by our colleague, Congressman Arnold 

Olsen.

(H.R. 11089 and agency reports thereon follow:)

[II.R. 11089, 89th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BI LL To amend the Act approved March 18, 1950, providing for th e construction of airp orts in or in 

close proximity to national parks, national monuments, and nation al recreation areas, and for o ther 

purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, Th at the Act approved March 18, 1950 (64 Stat. 

27; 16 U.S.C. 7a-7e), is amended by striking the figure “$2,000,000” at the end 

of section 2 a nd inserting in lieu thereof the figure “$3,500,000” .

E xecutive Office of the Presid ent,

Bureau of the Budget, 

Washington, D.C., March 15, 1966. Hon. Harley O. Staggers,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to the Com mittee’s request of 

September 17, 1965, and subs equent requests for the views of the Bureau of the 

Budget on H.R. 11089, “To amend the Act approved March 18, 1950, providing 

for the construction of airports in or in close proximity to national parks, national 

monuments, and natio nal recreation areas, and for oth er purposes.”

The report which the Secretary of the Interior is submittin g describes the purposes of the bill, outlines the proposed program, and recom mends e nactment.

1 he Bureau of the Budget would have no objection to the ena ctm ent of H.R. 

11089.

Sincerely yours,

Wilfred H. Rommel,

Actin g Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.
2 AIRPORTS AT NATIONA L PARKS

Department of the I nterior,

Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, D.C., March 15, 1966.

Hon. Harley 0. Staggers,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Staggers: Your Committee has requested a report on H.R. 11089, 

a bill “To amend the Act approved March 18, 1950, providing for the construction 

of airports in or in close proximity to national parks, national monuments, and 

natio nal recreation areas, and for other purposes.”

We recommend the ena ctm ent of the bill.

Section 2 of the Act of March 18, 1950 (64 Stat. 27; 16 U.S.C. 7b), [authorized 

the appropriation of not more t han $2 million for the Secretary of the Interio r to 

develop or participa te in the development of airports in or in close proximity to 

national parks, national monuments, and natio nal recreation areas. At the 

present time the $2 million authorization has an uncomm itted balance of only 

abo ut $330,000.

In 1950 the number of visitors to units of the National Park System was 

37,209,700. Today, however, t ha t number is more than 111,385,800 and air travel 

has become a popular means of visiting and enjoying the rich scenic, scientific, 

and historic features of th e National Park System. The current need for airp ort 

facilities at national parks, national monuments, and national recreation areas 

cann ot be met with the funds available under the 1950 authorization. In the 88th 

Congress the Senate Committe e on Appropriations took note of this fact and 

urged the Department to give expedited a tten tion to legislation th at will increase 

the authorization.

H.R. 11089 amends section 2 of the 1950 Act by increasing the authorization 

from $2 million to $3.5 million. The increase will be used principally by the 

Dep artm ent to assist in two airp ort projects: one at Grand Teton National 

Par k, Wyoming; and one at Glacier National Park, Montana. The two projects 

have been proposed as a result of the Departme nt’s comprehensive survey of 

the current need for airport facilities to serve national parks. Under the 1950 

Act and the Federal Airport Act of 1946 (49 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), as amended, 

the Departm ent may share the cost of airport projects in or in close proximity 

to national parks, national monuments, and national recreation areas w ith State or 

local agencies and with the Federal Aviation Agency. Th at agency also provides 

technical services in order th at the project will conform with the national airpor t 

plan.

The project at Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming, will consist of reconstructing the present Jackson Hole Airport which is within the park. Traffic 

at the Jackson Hole Airport has increased sharply in recent years and it is expected 

to continue to do so. The present runways, taxiways, airc raft tie-down, and 

hangars are inadequate and need to be expanded. The terminal building, 

vehicle parking area, and the airp ort access routes require upgrading to modren 

standards. The tota l cost of the project is estim ated at $959,785 of which approximately $495,000 will be borne by this Dep artm ent. It is expected th at 

the balance will be contributed by the Federal Aviation Agency. Teton County 

and the City of Jackson Hole, Wyoming, will pay the costs of operating and 

maintaining the airpo rt.

The project at Glacier National Park, Montana, will involve the construction 

of an airport at East Glacier, Montana, of a size sufficient to facilitate visitor 

access to this increasingly popular park by feeder-line commercial aircraft, and 

to provide for emergency operations and administrative needs of the National 

Park Service of this Departm ent, the Forest Service of the Departme nt of Agriculture, and other Federal agencies. The total cost of the project is estimated at 

$1,030,000 of which abo ut $523,000 will be contributed by this Departm ent. It 

is expected that the balance will be contributed by the Federal Aviation Agency. 

The Montana Aeronautics Commission will operate and m aintain the airp ort and 

pay the costs thereof.

The Department’s share of the cost of th e two projects is thus ab out $1,018,000. 

The remainder of the $1.5 million increase provided by H.R . 11089 (approximately $482,000) and the uncom mitted balance in the prese nt auth orization 

(approximately $305,000) will provide about $787,000 for future projects. Having 

such an amount available will obviate the necessity of the Department seeking 

funds for future airp ort projects on a piecemeal basis. It is expected th at the 

$787,000 will ultimately be used to provide airp ort facilities at o ther places where 

needs are anticipate d bu t for which further study is required.
AIRPORTS AT NATIONAL PARKS 3

The Bureau of the Budget has a dvised tha t there is no ob jection to the presentation of this repo rt from the sta ndpoi nt of th e Adm inistration’s program.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley A. Cain, 

Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

Department of the Air Force,

Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, D.C ., March 16, 1966.

Hon. Harley O. Staggers,

Chairman, Committee on Intersta te and Foreign Commerce,

Hou se of Representatives.

Dear Mr. C hairman: Reference is made to your reques t to the Secretary of 

Defense for the views of the De partm ent of Defense with respect to H.R . 11089, 

89th Congress, a bill “To amend the Act approved March 18, 1950, providing 

for the construction of a irports in or in close proximity to national parks, national 

monuments, and national recreation areas, and for other purposes” . The Air 

Force has been delegated the responsibility for expressing the views of the Depa rtm en t of Defense.

The Act of Marc h 18, 1950 (64 Stat. 28; 16 U.S.C. 7a-7e) authorizes the Secreta ry of the Interior to establish and operate airports in the continental United 

Sta tes in, or in close proxim ity to, national parks, national monuments, and 

national recreation areas when determined by him to be necessary to the performance of the func tions of the De partm ent of Inte rior, provided such air port 

is included in the then curre nt revision of the national air port plan form ulated 

by the Admin istrator of the Federal Aviation Agency pursu ant to the provisions 

of the Federal Airport Act.

To carry out the purpose of the Act, the Secretary is authorized to acquire 

necessary lands with the consent of the Sta te and political subdivision in which 

the land is located, and to contr act for the construction and maintenance of such 

airp orts, provided “Th at the authorization herein granted shall not exceed 

$2,000,000” .

The purpose of H.R . 11089 is to amen d the Act of M arch 18, 1950 to increase 

the scope of the authorization gra nted by the Act from $2,000,000 to $3,500,000.

The Departme nt of Defense interposes no objection to the ena ctm ent of this 

bill. However, inasm uch as the Act of Marc h 18, 1950 requires the inclusion 

of such airports in a cur ren t revision of the national airport plan as a prereq uisite to the establishme nt of any air po rt pursu ant to this author ity, it is recommended th at the views of the Federal Aviation Agency be obtaine d with respect 

to the proposed amendment.

Enactment of this measure will have no effect on the bud getary requirements 

of the Departme nt of Defense.

This report has been coordinated within the De partm ent of Defense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the sta ndpoint of the Administra tio n’s program, there is no objection to the presentati on of th is repo rt for the 

consideration of the Committee.

Sincerely,

Lewis E. Turner,

Deputy for Installations.

Federal Aviation Agency, 

Washington, D.C., March H , 1966.

Hon. Harley O. Staggers,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Was hington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in reply to your request for the views of this 

Agency on H.R . 11089, a bill to a men d the Act approved March 18, 1950, p roviding for the construction of airp orts in or in close proximity to national parks, 

national monum ents, and national recreation areas, and for other purposes.

The Federal Aviation Agency maintains an annually revised Nation al Airport 

Plan which contains our best estim ate of the Nation’s a irport needs. Included in 

the current plans are certain airp orts in or in close proxim ity to national parks, 

monuments, and recreation areas. We therefore fa vor ena ctm ent of H.R . 11089 

as a means of providing funds for the construction of needed airport facilities.
4 AIRPORTS AT NAT IONAL PARKS

The Bureau of the Budget has advised th at there is no objection from the stan dpoint of the Administration’s program to the submission of this report to your 

Committee.

Sincerely,

N a t h a n ie l H. G o o d r ic h, G en er al C ounse l.

Mr. Friedel. We will hear first from our colleague, the Honorable 

Arnold Olsen.

STATEMENT OF HON. ARNOLD OLSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Mr. Olsen. Mr. Chairman, allow me, first to extend my appreciation for this opportunity to testify before you in support of H.R.

11089. When 1 introduced this bill last fall, I was acutely aware of 

the need for better airport facilities near our national park units. 

After reviewing the subject more closely, I am even more convinced 

of this need.

H.R. 11089 proposes to amend section 2 of the original authorizing 

act of 1950 by increasing the authorization from $2 to $3.5 million. 

I am informed th at the increase will be used principally to assist in 

two airport projects: one at Grand Teton National Park, Wyo.; and 

one at Glacier National Park, Mont. These two projects have been 

proposed as a result of the Department of the Interior’s comprehensive 

survey of the current need for airport facilities to serve this Natio n’s 

national parks.

The project at Glacier National Park, Mont., will involve the construction of an airport at East Glacier, Mont., of a size sufficient to 

facilitate visitor access to this increasingly popular park by feederline commercial aircraft, and to provide for emergency operations and 

administrative needs of the National Park Service of the Department 

of the Interior, the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture, 

and other Federal agencies. The total cost of the project is estimated 

at $1,030,000 of which about $523,000 will be contributed by the 

Department of the Interior. It is expected tha t the balance will be 

contributed by the Federal Aviation Agency. The Montana Aeronautics Commission will operate and maintain the airport and pay 

the costs thereof.

Glacier National Park is one of the world’s outstanding scenic 

attractions. It was visited last year by nearly 900,000 people from 

every State in the Union and many foreign countries. Because of 

its location in the northernmost region of the United States, it is 

somewhat inconvenient for many people to visit this famous national 

park. The completed airport at Glacier would permit thousands of 

people to visit the park from all parts of the United States. A similar airport, completed near Yellowstone Park last year, attracted 

20,000 people in the first 3 months of operation, which is nothing 

compared to the traffic this airport will receive when the general 

public becomes fully aware of the advantages a park airport provide 

for tourists and vacationers, and many of the visitors to Yellowstone 

Park would also visit Glacier National Park.

In 1950, the number of visitors to units of the national park system 

was 37,209,700. Today, however, th at number is more than 111,308,- 

800 and air travel has become a popular means of visiting and enjoying 

the rich, scenic, scientific, and historic features of the national park 

system. The current need for airport facilities at national parks,
AIRPORTS AT NATIONAL PARKS 5

national monuments, and national recreation areas cannot be met 

with the funds available under the 1950 authorization. In the 88th 

Congress the Senate Committee on Appropriations took note of this 

fact and urged the Department of the Interior to give expedited attention to legislation that will increase the authorization. I have been 

informed that the necessary authorization has passed the Senate. 

I am also informed th at the Bureau of the Budget, the Department of 

the Interior, and the Federal Aviation Agency, and the Air Force 

have been consulted and all have given their approval of the measure 

before us.

Mr. (Chairman, and members of the committee, I urge your approval 

of this bill. To a Nation of vacationers it will mean greater accessibility to the natural wonders of my State of Montana. To Montanans, 

it will mean a new opportunity to serve the urban centers of our Nation 

with the beauty of our land.

Mr. Friedel. Thank you for your views Mr. Olsen.

Mr. Chester Bowers, Deputy Director of the Airports Service of the 

Federal Aviation Agency, is the next witness.

Mr. Bowers, you may proceed in reference to H.R. 11089 and S. 476.

STATEMENT OF CHESTER G. BOWERS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

AIRPORT SERVICE, FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY

Mr. Bovvers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

These bills would amend a 1950 act which originally provided to 

the Interior for airports projects in or near national parks, national 

monuments and national recreation areas. The proposed authorization would add $1.5 million for the same purpose.

Under the Federal Airport Act, the Federal Aviation Agency is 

authorized to use grant-in-aid funds to match funds of other Federal 

agencies for airports at these locations, and we have done so in past 

years.

The Federal Aviation Agency has assisted the National Park 

Service in the development of airports serving the national park at 

Kill Devil Hill, N.C., and the national parks at Grand Canyon, Ariz., 

and West Yellowstone, Mont. The Agency recognizes the need for 

civil airports in national parks to provide air access to the public.

The Department of the Interior has indicated tha t it will use a 

portion of the $1.5 million for improvement of the airport at Jackson 

Hole, Wyo., and for construction of an airport at East Glacier, Mont. 

Both airports are included in the national airport plan and would, 

therefore, be eligible for financial assistance from FAA.

We favor enactment of these bills.

Mr. Friedel. Is this for general aviation only, or commercial 

aviation?

Mr. Bowers. The proposal to improve the existing airport at 

Jackson Hole, Wyo., would benefit air travelers who travel by scheduled airline service, namely, Frontier Airlines, as well as the general 

aviation public.

The airport proposed to serve the Glacier National Park in Montana 

would serve only general aviation.

Mr. Friedel. Mr. Pickle, any questions?

Mr. Pickle. No, Mr. Chairman, I don’t believe so.

Mr. Friedel. Mr. Williams?
6 AIRPORTS AT NATIONAL PARKS

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I have a question I would like to 

ask Mr. Bowers.

Mr. Friedel. Mr. Williams.

Mr. Williams. This increases the figure of $2 million which I presume is set aside in the Airport Act to other Government agencies. 

Is tha t correct?

Mr. Bowers. No, sir.

Mr. Williams. Are these funds earmarked in the Airport Act?

Mr. Bowers. Not in the Airport Act, administered by FAA. This 

is a bill for the Department of the Interior authorizing appropriations 

to the Department of the Interior which tha t Department would 

propose to use as funds to match an FAA grant for improvements.

Mr. Williams. As 1 understand it, this is not an amendment to 

the Airport Act?

Mr. Bowers. That is correct, sir.

Mr. Pickle. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. Williams. Yes, surely.

Mr. Pickle. In construction of airports in or in close proximity 

to the national parks is there any designation as to what kind of 

facilities there will be at the airport with respect to whether it would 

be regular power or jet planes? Would it permit the construction of 

jet fields?

Mr. Bowers. It could, Mr. Congressman. It could provide the 

construction of facilities to meet whatever need exists.

Now, if you talk about the airport at Jackson Hole, Wyo., the 

critical need, that is, the size of the airport, would largely be determined by the equipment the scheduled airline would use; namely, 

Frontier.

Frontier is acquiring jets. They are operating turboprop aircraft 

now, so the airport would be enlarged to accommodate improved 

service by Frontier Airlines.

Mr. Pickle. There has been criticism in my State of building a 

jet field in the heart of a national recreation park. I am just trying 

to establish that it is not your inten t for these kinds of fields to be 

established.

I assume certainly with respect to the money involved tha t it 

couldn’t be more than just a normal light airport for light planes, 

relatively, planes of small capacity, and regular powered motors. 

Is tha t correct?

Mr. Bowers. If I understand your question, sir, tha t is not quite 

correct.

The airport at Jackson Hole, Wyo. is certificated for scheduled 

service and presumably would be improved to accommodate turboprop aircraft and possibly even pure jet aircraft.

Mr. Pickle. I simply would say to the gentleman tha t I have had 

a request for a national park out in the western part of my State and 

there has been considerable criticism from the people tha t they do 

not want jet planes flying in right in the heart of that national park 

and I would want to have it established before we take final action 

just what was the intent of this type of construction.

Mr. B owers. One thing of clarification, Mr. Congressman.

This act provides for construction of airports in or near national 

parks. It does not require that the airport be in the park. As a 

matter of fact, the airports a t Grand Canyon and a t West Yellowstone 

in which FAA assisted the Department of the Interior, along with
AIRPORTS AT NATIONAL PARKS 7

the States, to develop, were both outside the national park but adjacent to it.

Mr. Williams. And isn’t there a town of Jackson Hole?

Mr. Bowers. Yes, the town of Jackson.

Mr. Williams. How big a town is this?

Mr. Bowers. I don’t know, Congressman.

Mr. Pickle. Mr. Bowers, who would determine what type of construction you have? Would a State be able to regulate tha t themselves?

Mr. Bowers. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, the 1950 bill of the 

Department of the Interior which is proposed for amendment requires 

concurrence by the Governor, I believe, before an airport can be 

located in the State.

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I have one further question along 

the lines th at Mr. Pickle has been asking.

Mr. F riedel. For your information, we go into session at 11 o’clock 

today so I am trying to speed this thing up if we can.

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.

I am not in too big a hurry to get into executive session myself. 

I would like to ask a question of Mr. Bowers about the legislation 

before us.

This airport serves Jackson Hole. Is there airline service in there?

Mr. Bowers. Yes; by Frontier Airlines.

Mr. Williams. Will the local political subdivision—whether it be 

State, county, or city—be responsible to some extent for participation 

in the financing of these improvements on this airport, or will this be 

a 100-percent Federal project?

Mr. Bowers. I cannot speak for sure about this, Mr. Congressman. 

The city of Jackson, and the county, operate and maintain the airport. 

I do not know whether they also contribute funds for its capital 

improvement.

Mr. Williams. In other words, 1 am getting around to this. The 

city itself apparently benefits from the airport and I would presume 

that in traveling in and out of th at airport a great deal of it is travel 

to the city and not to a national park.

1 would just like to know if the city does have to participate by 

putting up a share of the funds for the development or construction 

of this airport, and if not why not?

Mr. B owers. This I cannot answer other than that the city and 

county provide the cost for operation and maintenance. Perhaps 

the Department of the Interior representatives can tell whether the 

city participates.

Mr. Williams. I don’t know whether they are here or not.

Do we have the Department of the Interior representatives here?

Mr. Friedel. Is anyone here from the Department of the Interior? 

Could you answer that question?

STATEMENT OF HOWARD W. BAKER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF

OPERATIONS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR

Mr. Baker. Mr. Chairman, I am Howard Baker, Assistant Director 

of National Park Service.

I didn’t hear the question, sir.
8 AIRPORTS AT NATIONAL PARKS

Mr. F riedel. Will you repeat the question?

Mr. Williams. The question is, Will the city, the county, or the 

State be required to participate to any degree in the financing of the 

improvements on Jackson Hole Airport?

Mr. Baker. Mr. Williams, as the FAA has indicated, the town of 

Jackson is a very small community and so far as I know they have 

never been able to participate to any extent.

Mr. Williams. What size town is Jackson?

Mr. Baker. It is around 2,000 or 3,000 people. They have never 

been able to participate, but they do maintain and operate the facility. 

1 think the larger part of the participation will have to be by the 

Federal Government.

Mr. Williams. Do you think that we are setting a good precedent 

here of providing for the Federal construction of airports in areas 

adjacent to the national parks without requiring the local political 

subdivisions or the States to participate as a partn er in the financing 

of the construction to some degree to reflect their own benefit from it?

Mr. Baker. Sir, I think they should participate to the extent 

possible.

Mr. Williams. I willl put it on that basis, to the extent possible.

Mr. Baker. I think they should.

Mr. Williams. I have in mind a situation that we have down in 

my district in Vicksburg. We have a national military park at 

Vicksburg which is operated by the Park Service with an airport at 

Vicksburg.

If we set the precedent for the Federal Government moving in and 

building airports in areas adjacent to the national parks with 100 

percent of Federal funds then I would be in good shape to come in and 

ask them to build me a nice airport over at Vicksburg, wouldn’t I?

Mr. Baker. You might, sir.

Mr. Williams. I don’t think that really is too farfetched. I think 

we should be very careful with the precedent tha t we are setting in 

this and, of course, I realize that Jackson, Wyo., is probably not able 

to participate to any great extent in this.

Approximately how much of the traffic can be attributable to the 

fact that there is this national park near there?

Mr. Baker. I would say perhaps 90 percent of the traffic that 

comes in there would be attributable to the fact tha t the airport is 

serving Grand Teton National Park and also in part serves Yellowstone National Park.

Mr. Williams. I am reasonably familiar with tha t area. I have 

been in there. As a matter of fact, I think in the mid-1950’s they 

didn’t even have a paved runway at that little airport. 1 don’t know 

whether they do now or not.

Mr. Friedel. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Williams. Thank you.

Mr. Friedel. Mr. Devine.

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, do we get another round if not concluded?

Mr. Devine. Would the gentleman from Interior state your name 

again.

Mr. Baker. I am Howard Baker, Assistant Director.

Mr. Devine. Mr. Bowers wasn’t exactly sure about the financing 

of the original act of March 18, 1950, in which the sum of $2 million 

was provided.
AIRPORTS AT NATIONAL PARKS 9

Now, is there an annual appropriation each year for this purpose, 

or is this the original $2 million tha t has been there for 16 years?

Mr. Baker. The act of 1959 authorized the National Park Service 

to request through appropriation processes up to $2 million. So far 

we have used all except about $330,000 of that authorization.

Mr. Devine. Therefore, you want authorized by virtue of the current Senate bill an additional $1,500,000?

Mr. B aker. Of authorization, yes.

Mr. Devine. Of authorization. Th at is on top of the $300,000 you 

have left of the original appropriation tha t has been there for 16 years?

Mr. B aker. That is right. Well, we have over the years spent all 

of th at except the $330,000.

Mr. Devine. I am surprised you hav en’t spent more in th at length 

of time. I see where the President late last week called in several of 

our key Governors and, suddenly discovering a need for economy in 

Government, asked the States to stop requesting Federal funds.

Do you think this bill fails in keeping with the President’s most 

recent discovery?

Mr. Baker. This is a long-term program and I realize that at the 

present time the economy probably would not indicate tha t this 

would be desirable at the time for us to request additional money.

Mr. Devine. Was the $2 million requested in this legislation included in the budget?

Mr. Baker. The $2 million, no; at the time this 1950 act was not 

included.

Mr. Devine. No; I mean is it in the current budget for the current 

fiscal year.

Mr. Baker. No; we have no money in there except we are authorized to request appropriations to spend up to the $330,000 we 

still have left.

Mr. Devine. That is your own funds, but this is for $2 million new 

money. Is this a budget item?

Mr. Baker. No.

Mr. Devine. Has it been approved by the Bureau of the Budget?

Mr. Baker. No; we have no request yet.

Mr. Devine. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Baker. That is merely an authorization, sir.

Mr. Friedel. Are there any other questions?

Mr. Watson?

Mr. Watson. Yes, sir; I have a question or two.

As I understood from the questions by Mr. Devine you have used 

all of the $2 million from the 1950 act except $300,000.

Mr. Baker. Tha t is right.

Mr. Watson. You have used all bu t $300,000.

Mr. Baker. That is right; $330,000 actually.

Mr. Watson. $330,000. And since 1950 you have received no 

subsequent authorization nor appropriation and I assume tha t you 

have not requested same; is th at correct?

Mr. Baker. That is correct, sir. I might clear up one point tha t 

Mr. Devine asked about, if I may. Actually the Bureau of the 

Budget has cleared our request for this additional million and a half 

of authorization.

Mr. Watson. They have cleared it, b ut actually it was not included 

in the President’s budget request initially?

Mr. Baker. That is right.
10 AIRPORTS AT NATIONAL PAR KS

Mr. Watson. So this would be above the President’s budget 

request?

Mr. Baker. No; it would not necessarily be above. You see, we 

have not asked for the money itself. We have only asked for the 

authorization.

Mr. Watson. Of course it naturally follows as night follows day 

that you wouldn’t want the authorization without the appropriation. 

This isn’t just going to be an exercise in good intentions, is it?

Mr. Baker. We have to work out with FAA as to when we come 

in with the program for the expenditure of this authorization.

Mr. Watson. Of course you can understand our concern, because 

the President wants to cut back and keep expenditures down to a 

minimum. I assume this is to be matching funds with the Dep artment of the Interior and the FAA.

Mr. B aker. Yes, sir.

Mr. Watson. Perhaps Mr. Bowers can respond to this.

In the present budget of the FAA do you have the matching funds 

set aside for this particu lar project?

Mr. B owers. The appropriation for the Federal Airport Act, Mr. 

Congressman, does not include line items. It is a lump sum. The 

appropriation pending in the Congress for fiscal year 1967 is the last 

year under which appropriations are authorized under the Federal 

Airport Act.

The full committee is having a hearing tomorrow on the extension 

of the Federal Airport Act. Whether we will have funds for these 

projects will in part depend on what happens to this legislation on 

which you are having a hearing tomorrow.

Mr. Watson. I can appreciate tha t fact, but the direct question 

is, Does your current budget request include the matching funds for 

this particular project?

Mr. Bowers. It does not.

Mr. Watson. It does not?

Mr. Bowers. Tha t is right.

Mr. Watson. So we not only have this amount for the Departm ent 

of the Interior, but the matching funds for the FAA which would be 

over and above the current request of the President?

Mr. Bowers. Let me make clear, sir, tha t the FAA budget for 

grant-in-aid airport funds is a lump-sum figure and if funds are 

appropriated in the future some of those funds could be used for these 

projects.

Mr. Watson. Yes; but in your calculation of your budget request 

did you specifically include the amount of money for the matching 

funds for the Department of the Interior?

Mr. Bowers. No.

Mr. Watson. You did not. I see. So if you should get a sum out 

of the lump-sum appropriation for airport grants it would have to be 

taken away from some other airport project which you included in 

your initial budget request? That is a fair statem ent; isn’t it?

Mr. Baker. Not quite, sir, because the budget request did not 

include funds for any particular airport.

Mr. Watson. You did not just pick a figure out of the air. I am 

sure tha t your budget request was based upon factual information as 

to what you projected your need to be and this was looking at general 

airport needs throughout the United States; wTasn’t it?
AIRPORTS AT NAT IONAL PA RK S 11

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir; but with the further limitation of the authorization bill which sets a limit on the amount of funds tha t we can ask 

for appropriation.

Mr. Watson. I want it clearly understood I am all for the FAA. 

We are just looking a t the financial end of it now and trying to govern 

our expenditures in accord with the President’s budget request.

Mr. Friedel. We will take tha t up in executive session.

Mr. Watson. May we ask one final question?

This is a brief one. As I understand, Jackson Hole, Wyo., is a 

small place. I believe you said 2,000 or 3,000 population.

Mr. Baker. 2,000 or 3,000, as I recall.

Mr. Watson. And they would not be in any position to give any 

substantia l financial assistance in this project, but Wyoming is not 

necessarily a small governmental entity. I know in South Carolina 

we have State grants for these small airports to assist in the improvement or development of the airport.

Have you made a request of the State of Wyoming to give financial 

assistance for the development of this particular airport?

Mr. Baker. We have not, sir.

Mr. Watson. In other words, the Federal Government just wants 

to take care of all of it and not request any assistance from Wyoming 

and so forth?

I share the sentiment of Congressman Williams. It might be nice 

for us in South Carolina and in Mississippi to stop spending locally. 

We will just ask the Federal Government to take care of it. That is 

the concern I have.

Mr. Bowers. You seem to be looking at me, Mr. Congressman. 

We have no proposal before us for improvement of the airport at 

Jackson Hole nor at East Glacier. These would be future plans, 

proposed to be authorized by this bill, bu t in previous instances where 

we have participated in an a irport to serve a national park the States 

have contributed.

In other words, for the airpo rt in K itty Hawk in North Carolina the 

State of North Carolina contributed one-third of the funds.

Mr. Watson. That was the next question I was going to ask.

Mr. Bowers. The airport at Grand Canyon, the State of Arizona 

contributed to that.

Mr. Springer. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Friedel. Mr. Springer.

Mr. Springer. This has raised some questions with me here. 

This is a boost of 75 percent in the authorization, which is a rather 

substantial one, and I haven’t quite got the justification for that kind 

of a boost as I listened to the testimony.

Mr. Baker. I had a prepared statement here to present this 

morning.

Mr. Springer. That is what I thought. You were going to 

testify. We had you on the list of witnesses here, but I didn’t want 

this to go by without any justification of a 75-percent increase. Let 

me ask you this.

I am friendly to your legislation, b ut I certainly wouldn’t want to 

do it on this kind of a record that is made thus far, which is what 

bothers me a little bit in the thing.

Mr. Baker. I would be happy, Mr. Chairman, if you would like 

to have me make a short statement.
12 AIRPORTS AT NATIONAL PARKS

Mr. F ried el. If there is no objection yo ur stat em en t will be 

include d in the record. If you wa nt to read it it is perfectly all 

rig ht.

Mr. Baker. I t is up to you.

Mr. F rie de l. I s i t a brief sta temen t?

Mr. Baker. It is ab ou t thre e p ages; two a nd a half pages.

Mr. F ried el. Ju st offer it for the record and it will be included in 

the record.

(The statem en t referred to follows:)

S t a te m e n t of H ow ard B a k e r, A ssis ta n t D ir ec t o r of O p e r a t io n s, N a tio n a l

P a rk Se r v ic e, D e p a r tm en t of t h e I n t e r io r

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the o ppo rtun ity to appear in s upp ort of this legislatio n. We believe it will greatly assist us in carrying out our functio n, which is 

to provide the best possible experience for every visitor to the Na tion’s National 

Park System.

The National Park Service of the Department of the Interior administers 32 

national parks, such as Yellowstone, Big Bend, and Isle Royale; 11 recreation 

areas, such as Lake Mead and Glen Canyon; 6 nation al seashores, such as Padre 

Island, Cape Hatteras and Assateague Island; 77 national monuments, such as 

Death Valley and Devils Tower; and 84 historical areas, such as Independence in 

Philadelphia and Harpers Ferry in West Virginia and Maryland.

Visitation to these units of th e National Park System has grown tremendously 

with the abundance of vacation tim e and increased awareness of the people in the 

scenic and historic wonders of their co untry. As an example, in 19G5 alone there 

has been a 9.4 percent increase in visits over 1964—from 102 million to more than 

112 million visits. These people need and we try to provide a variety of facilities 

and services to make their visit to the parks an enjoyable and rewarding experience.

As pa rt of our effort to project the need for access and other facilities, two 

years ago we conducted a survey of facilities which were available to people 

reaching the parks by airplane. As a result of this survey the airport serving 

Gran d Teton National Park in Wyoming was determined to be in need of improvement to serve increased traffic, and a new facility was determined to be needed 

for Glacier Natio nal Park in Mon tana. The need for airport facilities is anticipated at other areas also, bu t furth er s tudy is required before they are un dertaken.

The Act of March 18, 1950 (64 Stat. 27), authorizes the Secretary of th e Interior 

to participate with the FA A in the construction of airp orts with in or in close 

proximity to areas of the Natio nal Park System. The Act limits funds th at m ay 

be appropriated to the Secretary for this purpose to $2 million.

H. R. 11089 will increase the authorization to $3,500,000. (An identical bill, 

S. 476, has passed the Senate.) The additional $1.5 million authorization will 

be used largely to finance this Department’s share of improving the existing 

Jack son Hole a irpo rt for Grand Teton ($495,000) and constructing a new facility 

at Ea st Glacier, Montana, for Glacier National Park ($523,000). The remainder 

of the $1.5 million increase plus the uncommitted balan ce under the present 

authorization will provide authority for $787,000 for futu re projects.

Mr. Chairman when the present limitation of $2 million was enacted, the 

num ber of visitors to the National Park System was abo ut 37 million per year 

(1950). Our most recent figures, however, point to an annual visitation of more 

than 112 million, and air travel has become an increasingly popular means of 

visiting the parks. We support the enac tment of this legislation in order th at 

we can meet the need for more and better facilities.

Tha nk you very much.

Mr. F ried el. Wou ld anyone else like to have his stat em en t 

inclu ded in the record?

Besides Mr. Ba ker we hav e listed as witnesses H. G. Sm ith, Chief 

Program Co ordin ato r of the Na tio nal Pa rk Service ; Mr. Fr an k E. 

Ha rrison , Chief, Division of Legislation and Regulation , Nationa l 

Pa rk Service.

Mr. Baker. Th ey were sim ply h ere to help me.

Mr. D ing ell. Mr. Ch airma n, if I ma y be recognized for a m om ent.

Mr. F rie de l. Mr. Dingell.
AIRPORTS AT NATIONAL PARKS 13

Mr. Dingell. I agree with Mr. Springer—and we are referring now 

to this legislation, H.R. 11089—I don’t believe we have a record 

tha t would justify this subcommittee reporting tha t bill to the full 

committee, and 1 am satisfied tha t we can receive the information 

for the record.

I would be content to consider this matter in executive session 

on the basis of the information submitted by the agencies concerned, 

the FAA, the CAB, and by the Park Service, but I certainly would 

have to have something more than we have seen here in the way of 

testimony from the agencies, and I would like to have a chance to 

review the comments of the Department before we proceed on this 

matter.

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, in order to expedite things, there 

appears to be some feeling on the part of some members of the committee that they would like to know a little bit more about the bill 

tha t is presently before us.

Mr. Watson. Mr. Chairman, before we go into executive session, 

am I to conclude that we have finished the discussion of this particular 

bill and hearing from the witnesses?

Mr. Baker is an excellent witness. I think we can establish a 

good record here and I would hate for it to close now. I would like 

to see us have the opportunity next week to meet with these gentlemen 

again.

Mr. F riedel. We could ask them to do th at or it might be sufficient 

to studv the statem ent over the next few days.

Mr. \V atson. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a statement 

now, but a statement can’t answer questions. I would like to have 

the gentleman here to respond to some questions which a statement 

might provoke if we could.

Mr. Friedel. Can you return Monday, October 3?

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir.

Mr. Friedel. At 10 o’clock?

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir.

Mr. Friedel. Will th at satisfy you?

Mr. Watson. That will be fine.

Mr. Friedel. Are you from Washington?

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir.

Mr. Friedel. All right.

At this time we shall hear from our colleague from California, the 

Honorable Harold Johnson.

STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD T. JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. J ohnson. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you, and the 

members of your committee for allowing me to testify in support of 

the bill before this committee. H.R. 11089 proposes to increase the 

authorization of funds for the construction of airports near the various 

units of the national park system. It is a sound proposal. It is 

urgently necessary. It is in the best interests of all Americans.

The last decade has seen a number of startling changes in American 

life, but one of the most far reaching is the widespread support and 

use of air travel by the American public. No longer are the airplanes 

a mode of travel for a small minority. The airplane has become an
14 AIRPORTS AT NATIONAL PARKS

integral part of our transportation system while other forms have 

declined.

Paralleling the growing use of the airplane, has been another 

development—the rising demand for recreation areas and national 

parks. Many Americans are demanding tha t some forest and natural 

areas be set aside for the enjoyment of future generations. They want 

natural wonders to be protected. They want natural scenery to be 

saved.

Mr. Chairman, it is to these two developments—the technology of 

air travel, and the growing demand for recreation areas—that this hill 

before us speaks. In years past, the beautiful, and awe-inspiring 

park areas could not be visited unless a long journey were undertaken 

by car or by train. But nowadays, these areas can be reached in a 

matter of hours by airplane. It is possible to spend a short vacation 

in a national park and return to a job without spending days getting 

there and days returning. But this, I underline, is possible only if 

there are adequate airport facilities near our national parks.

For these reasons, I urge the committee to pass this bill to construct 

the necessary facilities, so tha t these national parks can be brought 

closer to the American public.

Thank you.

Mr. Friedel. Thank you for your concise statement Mr. Johnson.

The subcommittee is now adjourned until Monday, October 3.

(Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene 

Monday, October 3, 1966, a t 10 a.m.)
AIRPORTS AT NATIONAL PARKS

MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 196 6

House of R epresentatives,

Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics

X of the Committee on I nterstate and F oreign Commerce, 

s Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2123, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Samuel N. Friedel (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. Friedel. The meeting will now come to order.

The purpose is to consider H.R. 11089, to amend the act approved 

March 18, 1950, providing for the construction of airports in or in 

close proximity to national parks, national monuments, and national 

recreation areas, and for other purposes.

At the last hearing Mr. Baker was prepared to submit his sta tement and, Mr. Watson, I think you agreed tha t it would be included 

in the record.

Mr. Watson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Friedel. Are there any questions to ask Mr. Baker?

Mr. Watson. I think at the time, Mr. Chairman, we were trying 

to develop the relationship between the Sta te’s or the local governmen t’s participation in the construction and/or renovation of these 

airports and 1 personally was interested in trying to find out just 

what be the S tate ’s participation in these particular matters.

STATEMENT OF HOWARD BAKER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF 

OPERATIONS, NATIONAL PARK SERV ICE - Re su med

Mr. Baker. The Jackson Hole Airport is located in Teton County 

in Wyoming, a county that perhaps has 75 percent of its land under 

public ownership. The town of Jackson, Wyo., the only community 

of any size in that locality, has a year-round population, which I 

checked on the other day, of 1,437 people.

This airport is located in Grand Teton National Park. It was 

located on this site before the park was extended to include the 

Jackson Hole territory. This airport serves Grand Teton National 

Park and also Yellowstone National Park because many people come 

into tha t country through this airport.

The other closest airport would be, I think, some 150 to 200 miles 

away over mountainous roads, so I think it is important tha t this 

airport be expanded to provide for the increased traffic tha t is coming 

into the Jackson Hole country.

Frontier Airlines would like to increase their capability to provide 

for small jet airplanes coming into this airport. There is also a terrific 

amount of private air activity at this airport and the storage place for

15
16 AIRPORTS AT NATIONAL PA RK S

private planes needs to be increased. The runway needs to be 

extended. The town of Jackson, Wyo. in Teton County manages 

and operates and maintains this airport.

Before we go into this expansion program we certainly want to 

check with the State of Wyoming and we will urge them to participate 

to the extent possible in improvement of this airport.

Mr. Watson. We appreciate that fact.

I want to underscore my position that I am in favor of expanding 

these facilities and giving broader access to these particular parks, 

but I think it was established at the last hearing tha t not only do 

visitors to the park utilize this, but also people coming into Jackson 

itself.

I believe the record will further show that in North Carolina there 

was State participation in the development of that park, and 1 know 

in my State that we almost yearly have definite and specific appropriations for various airport improvements throughout the State where the 

locality is unable to assume the financial burden and I think if others 

are doing it, then we should certainly treat them all alike.

With the assurance, Mr. Chairman, tha t the Department will 

insist on the State of Wyoming doing their part in reference to this, 

then certainly I would have no objection, but my whole thought is 

that all would be treated alike in this regard.

Mr. Fkiedel. Is that my understanding, tha t the States will 

participate?

Mr. Baker. As I said, we certainly will make efforts to have the 

State participate to its capability and, as 1 pointed out, the town of 

Jackson and the county of Teton do operate and maintain the airport.

Mr. Friedel. Thank you, Mr. Baker.

Are there any other questions? No questions.

Well, thank you very much. I think we understand the bill.

The committee will retire into executive session and ask all others 

to leave.

(Whereupon, at 10:13 a.m., Monday, October 3, 1966, the public 

hearing was adjourned and the subcommittee proceeded in executive 

session.)

-

g *