SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
51–282 CC
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
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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
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
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, 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
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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
C O N T E N T S
Hearing held September 24, 1998
Statements of Members:
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni, a Delegate in Congress from the State of American Samoa, prepared statement of
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah
Prepared statement of
Hayworth, Hon. J. D., a Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona
Shadegg, Hon. John B., a Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona
Prepared statement of
Stump, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona
Statements of witnesses:
Ahuja, K. K., Professor and Regents Researcher, Georgia Institute of Technology
Prepared statement of
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Alberti, John R., JR Engineering
Prepared statement of
Arnberger, Robert, Superintendent, Grand Canyon National Park
Prepared statement of
Additional testimony by Robert Arnberger
Grisham, Mark, Executive Director, Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association
Prepared statement of
Halvorson, Elling B., President, Papillon Airways, Inc.
Prepared statement of
Harrison, Robin T., P.E., Consultant
Prepared statement of
Lynch, Robert S., Chairman of the Board, Central Arizona Project Association
Prepared statement of
Statements by participants of various river trips
Merrill, Brian I., Chief of Operations, Western Rivers Expeditions
Prepared statement of
Reffalt, William C., The Wilderness Society and The Grand Canyon Trust
Prepared statement of
Additional material supplied:
Grisham, Mark, letter to The Grand Canyon Conservation Fund
JR Engineering, Analysis Report
Statements by participants of various river trips
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
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MANAGEMENT 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 assumptions used in the modeling, which led the Park Service to conclude that natural quiet has not been restored in the Grand Canyon.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
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.]
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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 majority of park visitors in their trip to the Grand Canyon is a once-in-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.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. The first panel that we have will be the superintendent of the Grand Canyon National Park. We appreciate you 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.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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, including 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.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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?
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
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.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
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.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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?
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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 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.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
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 peer-review 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.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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 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.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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 memories of the Canyon originated with trips I took as a child and are refreshed with later trips I have taken with my family.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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:
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(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 flight-free 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.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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 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.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
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.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[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.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[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.
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.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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 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.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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 scientific issues ought to be such that you don't question the viability of some of the findings.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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 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——
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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, 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.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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?
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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 report. 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.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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——
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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 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.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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 three-plus-the-ambient is a reasonable level.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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 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.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
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.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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 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.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
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?
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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 paragraph 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?
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. In your expert opinion, would you state that the outboard motors, which are used on the Grand Canyon, do or do 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.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
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.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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?
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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——
Mr. ARNBERGER. The first model that—let me see what my colleague 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?
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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 problems. 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?
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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. 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?
Page 59