Aloha, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this opportunity to offer my views about air tour overflights at national parks.
At the outset, allow me to acknowledge your leadership on this subject. Although it has been ten years since passage of the National Parks Overflights Act of 1987, the law which you authored remains the standard of progress on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, park overflights are a serious threat to the integrity of our national parks. While air tour operators often provide important emergency services and can enhance park access for special populations, unregulated overflights have the potential to harm park ecologies, distress wildlife, impair visitor enjoyment of the park experience, and pose a safety hazard.
Air tourism is especially problematic in Hawaii, where the industry has enjoyed extremely rapid growth. Between 1982 and 1994, the number of air tour helicopters jumped from 35 to 82, and the number of passengers flown rose from fewer than 184,000 to more than half a million, with a commensurate increase in the volume of flights as well as accidents.
At Haleakala National Park on Maui, helicopter operators have entered into an informal agreement that has reduced some but not all adverse impacts on the park. The agreement has eliminated flights into the crater, a major accomplishment for which the Maui air tour operators should be praised. A significant drawback of the agreement, however, is that it is voluntary and lacks an enforcement mechanism to remedy violations. Another shortcoming is that the agreement stops at the park's boundary, even though noise from aircraft flying just outside the boundary impacts park resources.
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park on the Big Island does not enjoy a similar arrangement, and overflights of park territory as well as surrounding communities continue at a great pace, essentially unregulated. An agreement has been difficult to achieve because of the area's unique climate and topography, which often limits the number of prime sightseeing routes available to operators. An accord has also been forestalled by the absence of a federal policy framework to guide negotiations. Absent formal agreements, the only effective regulation of commercial air tour aircraft in Hawaii has been SFAR-71, an emergency FAA rule issued in 1994 following a series of commercial air tour aircraft accidents in the islands. The rule established a minimum standoff distance of 1500 feet and other operating restrictions on air tour aircraft throughout the state, which have resulted in significant safety and environmental benefits for Hawaii.
Although SFAR-71 is not specifically designed to address park overflights, it is by default the strongest existing mechanism we have for mitigating the impact of air tour operations on our national parks. I therefore hope that FAA extends the rule indefinitely beyond its scheduled expiration date this fall.
Parenthetically, I should note that SFAR-71's usefulness has been undermined by excessive use of waivers that allow operators to fly as low as 500 feet above ground level. The rule has also been weakened by the fact that some operators, in order to be able to fly even lower the 500 foot waiver limit, are resorting to the practice of claiming they are engaged in commercial photography rather than sightseeing activities. (I hasten to note that this a minority practice; most operators fly legitimately and do not resort to such subterfuge.) I would urge FAA to address these matters should the special regulation be renewed.
Serious as the problem is in Hawaii, park overflights are arguably an even greater problem at Grand Canyon, which experiences far more air traffic. Other parks, such as Grand Teton, Great Smoky Mountains, and the parks of the Colorado Plateau, including Zion and Bryce Canyon, also experience serious overflight impacts. In fact, the study mandated by the 1987 Overflights Act revealed that at least 98 national parks, more than a fourth of the National Park System, are adversely affected by overflights. So this problem is not confined to one or two states; this is a national issue that requires a national policy.
Mr. Chairman, the 1987 Overflights Act was intended to serve as the baseline for such a national policy. The law inspired a number of Administration initiatives, including the formation of an Interagency Working Group by the Secretaries of Transportation and Interior, and joint rulemaking efforts by the FAA and Park Service at the Grand Canyon, at Rocky Mountain National Park, and on the national commercial air tour rule.
While I applaud the Administration for taking some very positive steps on overflights, I am disappointed in the inconsistent pace of progress on these and other initiatives. It took millions of years for the mighty Colorado River to carve out the magnificent Grand Canyon, and the task of completing the Grand Canyon rule appears to be proceeding at roughly the same speed. Meanwhile, the national rule, which was supposed to have been issued in draft form at end of 1996, is still in development. And, of course, there has never been a serious effort to develop rules for national parks in Hawaii. About the only tangible achievement has been the promulgation of a flight ban on overflights at Rocky Mountain, but even this is a temporary expedient that awaits completion of the national rule. In my opinion, the chief cause of inaction and delay has been the inability of the FAA and Park Service to develop integrated policies and procedures that can provide guidance to managers concerned with resolving overflight problems at the national, regional, and park levels.
This shortcoming derives from the fact that the two agencies are charged with mutually exclusive missions. FAA is responsible for the safety and efficiency of air commerce, the Park Service is charged with protecting and preserving park resources. Their charters and constituencies must necessarily come into conflict on the issue of regulating airspace over noise sensitive areas. Only by modifying or clarifying their statutory responsibilities can we expect the two federal agencies to work together effectively to address the overflights problem.
Mr. Chairman, this goal can be achieved by passing appropriate legislation, such as your bill, S. 268, the National Parks Overflights Act of 1997, or my bill, S. 291, the National Parks Airspace Management Act, which I am pleased to note is cosponsored by two members of this Committee, Senator Inouye and Senator Frist. Although our bills differ in some respects, they are in agreement on the fundamental issues.
First, our bills define the respective roles of FAA and the Park Service in the development of overflight policies, specifically, by assigning the Park Service the task of identifying, and developing recommendations for protecting, critical park resources, while properly restricting FAA's role to matters of aviation safety. Second, our bills establish a clear decisionmaking process that embraces constructive participation by interested parties, including operators and environmental advocates. Third, both S. 268 and S. 291 include mechanisms for protecting parks that currently do not experience overflights. Finally, our bills recognize the potential for the development of quiet aircraft technology, which has obvious applications at national parks.
Together, these provisions offer the means to overcome the bureaucratic footdragging that has characterized progress on the overflights issue thus far.
Mr. Chairman, as we have learned at the Grand Canyon and in Hawaii, while it is difficult to preserve a resource such as natural quiet, restoring it after it has been significantly compromised is often impossible. The 1987 Overflights Act sought a balance between the interests of commercial air tour operators and the Park Service's statutory mandate to preserve resources unimpaired for future generations while providing for visitor enjoyment. Such a balance has, to date, proved to be an elusive quarry, and, while I think that any legislation we consider should seek to be as fair and equitable as possible to all stakeholders, I believe that our highest obligation is to the citizens of the United States, who established the National Park System to preserve and enjoy our finest natural and cultural legacies. Thus, protecting park resources and visitor experiences from unacceptable impacts must be our top priority. We must act now if we are to achieve this goal.
Mr. Chairman, I view the park overflights issue as a nonpartisan one which will require a strong bipartisan effort to resolve. In that context, let me close, Mr. Chairman, by indicating that I would deem it an honor and a privilege to be added as a cosponsor of your bill. I welcome the opportunity to work with you in resolving this troublesome issue.
