Federal Aviation Administration
and
National Park
Service
October 20
& 21, 2003
Federal Register Announcement
of Meeting
The meeting was held at The
Wort Hotel, Jackson Room, Jackson, Wyoming on October 20, 2003. The dates, location,
and times of the meeting were announced in the Federal Register on
Attendance
The NPOAG consists of 10
members. Nine of the ten members were
present, and there was a substitute for the one member who was absent. Refer to the attached attendee list. (Attachment 1)
Opening Statements and Remarks
A notebook of NPOAG
background materials was provided to each of the advisory group members and the
Chairman and Vice Chairman of the meeting.
The notebook contained a report on the NPS Natural Sounds Program Office
progress in 2003, and copies of the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of
2000, the FAA National Parks Air Tour Management; Final Rule, 14 CFR Parts 91
and 136 (final rule), the joint FAA/NPS draft Memorandum of Understanding, and
the NPOAG Charter. A letter addressed to NPS Director Fran Mainella
from three NPOAG members that expressed the underutilization of the NPOAG was
distributed by Sue Gunn to the rest of the advisory group and FAA and NPS
staff.
Chairperson Karen Trevino
called the meeting to order and provided the NPOAG members with a synopsis of
her professional background as a lawyer, lobbyist, and Senior Counselor in both
the Office of the Secretary, Department of Interior and the Director of the
National Park Service. Karen noted in
the chairperson’s report that the format of the meeting is changing from one of
just providing information to the NPOAG members to one of utilizing the
expertise of the advisory group to provide advice and recommendations to the
FAA and NPS as intended by the act. Karen
also stated that the joint FAA/NPS Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is in the
respective agencies’ headquarters for approval signatures, that there is a
better working relationship between the FAA & NPS, and that our office is
working diligently to procure additional air tour management plan (ATMP)
funding. NPOAG member Chip Dennerlein wanted to know how the advisory group would
assist in addressing issues raised in the letter to the NPS Director. Karen Trevino proposed to list and prioritize
the letter issues. The proposed motion
was carried.
Karen Trevino in her opening
remarks recommended that a greater number of NPOAG meeting should be held each
year – perhaps three annually. She said
we do not want to lose the momentum in the program. Karen also stressed that
the meeting format will be modified to encourage greater NPOAG participation
and to foster both agencies in stretching more and thinking outside of the box.
The agenda was distributed
and approved by NPOAG members, and the minutes from the NPOAG meeting last year
was reviewed and approved with the comment that the spelling of Alan Stephen’s
name would be corrected.
Vice Chairman Barry Brayer in
his report mentioned that the meeting was for the NPOAG members. He also
provided a status report of the accomplishments and directions of the past year
that included publication of the final rule on October 25, 2002 with an
implementation date of January 23, 2003, approval of the NPOAG charter,
discussion of the application process for commercial air tour operators to
obtain operating authority (OA) to continue or initiate park overflights, and the change in the rate of conducting ATMPs. Barry
mentioned that some of the air tour operators are already at their Interim
Operating Authority (IOA) caps and have requested FAA approval of a greater
number of flights per year. In addition,
new entrant applications have not been approved thus prohibiting park overflights to these operators. The FAA, in response to
receiving approximately twice the anticipated number of operating authority
(OA) applications, initially proposed to initiate a large number of ATMPs in Fiscal Year 2003 & 2004. However, that decision has been revised to
direct resources and energies to a smaller number of parks – six in
Chip Dennerlein
recommended clustering of ATMP parks to enhance the analysis and planning
efficiency, and to maximize funding. Chip requested a discussion on the topic.
Sue Gunn wanted to know what
was the FAA verification process for OA applications, what is the status of soundscape management plans for FY03 ATMP parks, how noise
impact levels would be determined in the ATMPs, and
how did wilderness enter into the process.
Sue strongly recommended more frequent communication from the FAA and
NPS on the ATMP planning progress. Sue
suggested monthly updates to NPOAG members and increasing the number of NPOAG
meetings – perhaps three a year. Alan
Stephen noted that there is a vehicle in place for communicating in regards to
modifications to the part 135 rule.
NPOAG members can log on to the FAA website and find the docket and use
the KSN (knowledge sharing network) to provide comments, ask questions, etc.
FAA Western Pacific Regional
Administrator Bill Withycombe in his opening remarks
encouraged more involvement and advice from the NPOAG now that the ATMP process
is underway. Bill mentioned that the FAA
is working in partnership with the NPS and that the joint FAA/NPS Memorandum of
Understanding was about to be signed by the Administrator. He stated that numerous ATMPs
have been initiated this year even though the regulation was established only
nine months ago. Bill said that he is
pleased with the program progress to date.
He emphasized that the number one mission of the FAA is safety and that
is the agency’s bottom line for the ATMPs. He also
stated that the NPS has a role to preserve and protect the parks. In regards to clustering ATMPs,
he stated that each park is different, but in the planning process we may be
able to combine the environmental documents.
He noted that the
Legislative
Background
Alan Stephen said that the
legislation was too specific and thus is tying the hands of the regulatory
agencies and hampering NPOAG from applying or acting as an agent for
continuity.
Lash Larew
emphasized that NPOAG, as a group, should function to deal with ATMP issues of
national scope, as opposed to becoming involved in regional or park-specific
issues.
Chip Dennerlein
suggested that the two agencies incorporate park resources/visitor experience
sensitivity into prioritization matrix and reiterated that ATMP cluster
analysis be pursed, not just cluster timing.
Barry tentatively agreed with changing the priority matrix and liked the
idea of clustered analysis but believes there is a legal issue in this
approach. Karen will work with Barry in
exploring the issue of clustered analysis.
Acoustical Data Acquisition
and Analysis
Quiet Technology and Federal
Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN)
1)
How it would affect
the substantive results of ongoing ATMP’s
2)
How it would
affect the timing of all others given the two years time frame
3)
The impacts to
air tour operators in need of IOA
4)
Dollars taken
away from ATMP’s
5)
Impact on Grand
Canyon Alternative Dispute Resolution process
Status and Process of Air
Tour Management Planning
The
NPS role as a cooperating agency and NPS signatory authority and responsibility
were discussed by Brian and Bob. The
legislation clearly points out that the FAA is the lead agency in the
development of the ATMPs, but the act also provided
dual agency signature authority in the approval of the ATMP decision
document. The NPS is concerned about its
vulnerability as a signatory if its process needs and park mandates,
objectives, etc. are not met as part of the analysis beginning with purpose and
need. How can NPS sign an environmental document and decision or plan that
is/are not consistent with NPS mandates and policies and not be vulnerable? The
basis for NPS as a cooperating agency, is that it has special expertise and
jurisdiction in law for National Park Service lands.
In
defining thresholds of impact significance the FAA has a number of threshold criteria. However, noise is
an exception, and the FAA is concerned about how significant noise impacts are
to be determined. The NPS believes the context for determining impact
significance is related to park resources and values (see remarks under purpose
and need). Air tours, which operate under FAA jurisdiction, represent the
source of aircraft noise impacts, while potential impacts occur on national
park lands and resources that are within NPS jurisdiction. Impacts should be
considered within the context of park mandates, etc, as set in purpose and
need. The National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) approaches differ in that the FAA determines significance up front
and confines its analysis accordingly, whereas the NPS normally evaluates and
discloses the magnitude, intensity and duration of direct, indirect and
cumulative impacts while leaving it to the decision maker to determine
significance at the end of the process. For both agencies to approve the ATMP
record of decision, the differences in approach to significant impact
determination need to be resolved so that both agencies’ requirements are met.
In
determining levels of noise impacts, the FAA believes that differences exist
between models (i.e., Noise Model Simulation - NMSIM vs
modified Integrated Noise Model - INM) and metrics used to determine the
ambient sound environments and noise intrusions. However, the NPS is largely in agreement
conceptually with models and methodologies used by the FAA, but the differences
are primarily a function of policy.
There
is also a difference in justification for mitigation of adverse impacts between
the two agencies. The FAA says that any
mitigation (e.g., any restrictions on air tour operators) for “significant”
adverse impacts must be justified.
However, the NPS refers to NEPA which
states that mitigation for any adverse impacts should be considered. Based on
purpose and need a range of alternatives that addresses issues about impacts on
national parks should be evaluated. The resource impact trade-offs represent
suitable justification for mitigation. If the NPS only considers “significant”
adverse impacts on park resources and visitor experiences, the agency is
vulnerable to law suits due to conflicts with the Organic Act, Redwoods Act, Reauthorization
Act, NEPA and CEQ regulations, etc.
Interim
Operating Authority (IOA)
In
response to
·
How many existing
operators have applied for IOAs? Under what classification (Part 91, 121,
& 135). Please provide a breakdown by
park.
·
How many of those
existing applicants have received IOAs?
·
How many
requested increases?
·
How many
applicants are new entrants and for which parks?
·
Of those new
entrant applicants how many are for parks where there are currently no existing
air tour operations?
It was
agreed at that time that Kent Stephens would provide the information to FAA
and NPS first so it could be used the following week at the strategy planning
meeting at the
Tribal
Participation
Brian
stated that consultation letters had been sent to the tribal council presidents
and tribal historic preservation offices of affected tribes inviting them to
participate in the ATMP process as a cooperating agency. However, none of the tribes have provided a
response to date. Germaine White replied
that tribal councils and governments are inundated on a daily basis with
various requests and are not able to respond quickly due to their workload. She suggested that they follow up with
another letter and telephone call to tribes who have not responded. Germaine and Richard Deertrack
said that face-to-face meetings with the tribal chair as well as with the
tribal cultural leader would be more effective in initiating tribal
consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA.
They also stated that tribes understand the issue of sovereignty and
that it would be important to send a representative of the agency to meet with
tribal leaders. In addition, it was
recommended that when consultation letters are transmitted by the FAA that they
be co-signed by the NPS since tribes are much more used to working with NPS and
therefore it would increase the likelihood of a timely response. It was decided
that the FAA should work closely with Germaine and Richard to help facilitate
communication with the various tribes.
Richard
and Germaine also requested that if ATMPs are
clustered, tribal concerns need to be included, and in considering ATMP
priorities, factor in park and tribal critical cultural and natural
resources. When developing park ATMPs with abutting or included tribal lands or tribal ATMPs, impose limited or no noise intrusions at sacred
sites during appropriate times of the year.
Other
follow up action items are:
·
Send Germaine and
Richard a copy of the FAA letter to the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation and the Tribal Historic Preservation Offices and
·
Place the Tribal
Consultation discussion early in the agenda at the next NPOAG meeting with
sufficient time to discuss details including the issue of disclosure.
Questions
and Comments from the Audience
A
local horse outfitter and rancher in the Grand Teton NP area expressed grave
concern for the safety of the helicopter air tour operations. He mentioned that seven commercial air tour
helicopters had crashed within the last decade – one in
John
Dillon of Grand Canyon Airlines requested copies of the roster of attendees of
the meeting . He then asked that the FAA
publish the results of the OA applications in the Federal Register. He also stated that the number of air tours
applied for (over 200,000) was extremely overstated. And therefore the playing
field is actually much smaller than appears.
He explained that the numbers were so inflated due to a few different
reasons but mainly: 1) confusion/misunderstanding, 2) intentional place
markers, and 3) 2 different operators putting in for the same route.
Closing
Remarks
Additional
Action Items and Recommendations
Experiential
Walk
Early
Tuesday morning on October 21st, NPOAG members and FAA and NPS
officials met at the Taggert Lake Trailhead to
conduct a three and one half mile loop hike to the lake to experience a
backcountry area at
Late
Tuesday morning the group visited
ATTACHMENT 1
NATIONAL
PARKS OVERFLIGHTS ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT AT THE MEETING
Name Telephone
Number Email
Address
Alan Stephen (702) 648-8837 arstephen@aol.com
Lash Larew (907)
248-4422 rllarew@eraaviation.com
Hope
Sieck
(406) 586-1593 hsieck@greateryellowstone.org
Sue
Gunn (202)
429-2627 sue_gunn@tws.org
Heidi
Williams (301)
695-2227 Heidi.Williams@aopa.org
Charles
Maynard (423)
913-2192 smokycwm@aol.com
Richard
Deertrack (505)
758-4803 deer@laplaza.org
Germaine
White (406)
883-2888 x 7299 germainew@cskt.org
Chip Dennerlein (907)
351-4658 cdennerlein@msn.com
Karen
Trevino, Chairman (303) 225-3563 Karen_Trevino@nps.gov
Barry
Brayer, Vice Chairman (310) 725-3800 Barry.Brayer@faa.gov