Management of Commercial Air Tourism
over National Parks
Wesley Henry
Rick Ernenwein
Howie Thompson
Steve Oppermann
Abstract—Over the past decade there has been growing controversy regarding the role of air tourism over National Parks and how
the orientation of these commercial visitors could be reconciled with
those of more traditional visitors. Agency meetings, media reports
and editorials, legal briefs, and regulatory hearings have been the
forums for contentious debate. The management challenge is extremely complex and until recently has defied solution. The core
problem is that this aerial tourism is occurring at the regulatory
interface of two major United States Government agencies that
have very different mandated missions—the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Park Service. These agencies creatively employed a Federal advisory body known as the “National
Parks Overflights Working Group” to recommend a way to regulate
commercial, park-dependent air tourism. The Working Group,
comprised of aviation interests, environmental interests, and a
Native American representative, carefully crafted a solution that
blended the authorities and responsibilities of the two agencies into
a regulatory mechanism that has been deemed workable and
acceptable to all parties. The Federal Aviation Administration, in
cooperation with the National Park Service, is now converting this
compromise process into a proposed Federal Aviation Regulation,
even as the United States Congress is on the verge of converting it
into law. If successfully implemented by the two Federal agencies,
this approach to managing air tourism over National Parks may
provide a solution wherever this type of tourism generates conflict.
Over the past decade there has been growing controversy
regarding the role of air toursm and the protection of the
natural and cultural soundscapes in America’s National
Parks. Agency meetings, media reports and editorials, legal
briefs, and regulatory hearings have frequently been forums
for contentious debate. Legislative action by Congress and
some local governments, as well as administrative actions
by Federal agencies, have tried to deal with the issue for
In: Watson, Alan E.; Aplet, Greg H.; Hendee, John C., comps. 2000.
Personal, societal, and ecological values of wilderness: Sixth World Wilderness Congress proceedings on research, management, and allocation, volume II;
1998 October 24–29; Bangalore, India. Proc. RMRS-P-14. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Wesley Henry is Wilderness Program Leader, National Park Service,
Ranger Activities Division, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240,
U.S.A., e-mail: wes_henry@nps.gov. Rick Ernenwein is Overflight Issues
Coordinator, National Park Service, P.O. Box 25287, Denver, CO 80255
U.S.A., e-mail: rick_ernenwein@nps.gov. Howie Thompson is Senior Planner,
National Park Service, P.O. Box 25287, Denver, CO 80255 U.S.A., e-mail:
howie_thompson@nps.gov. Steve Oppermann is Natural Resource Consultant, 3015 South Linley Court, Denver, CO 80236 U.S.A., e-mail:
steve_oppermann@nps.gov.
12
specific park areas, but until now no approach has been
found acceptable by both the aviation and environmental
communities.
The scale of the issue ranges from Grand Canyon National
Park, where over 30 commercial air tour operators provide
in excess of 100,000 tour flights per year, to the State of
Hawaii, which experiences the next highest volume of commercial air tour overflights in the Nation, to Great Smoky
Mountains National Park where one air tour operator conducts multiple low-level overflights daily, to Rocky Mountain National Park where several air tour operators have
contemplated operations (and local, county, and State governments, as well as the State Congressional delegation,
expressed their strong objections). Because of the diversity
in parks, park purposes, significances, visitor experiences,
and industry type and size, the effect of commercial air
tourism on park units is also variable. Nevertheless, increasing numbers of overflights over noise-sensitive parks
have sparked significant public debate and controversy
related to safety and impacts on park resources and the
visitor experience.
The National Park Service recognizes that air tours of
parks can provide a service to visitors in terms of sightseeing
and access. At issue is the agency’s ability to manage the use
by allowing it where it is appropriate and compatible with
resource protection and visitor experience, and limiting or
prohibiting it where it is not. At the heart of this issue is the
split jurisdiction between airspace and land management
and the different purposes for which these are managed by
the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Park
Service. The National Park Service regulates (and often
limits) recreation and tourism activities in National Parks
for the purpose of preserving park resources and providing
for a high-quality, sustainable visitor experience. The Federal Aviation Administration regulates National Park airspace for safety and efficiency. Thus, the agencies have not
had a common mechanism to address the management of air
tourism over parks, the quality of service provided to park
visitors, or how this service might be provided in a way that
minimizes impacts on park resources and visitors.
After two air tour aircraft collided over Grand Canyon
National Park, the United States Congress, through Public
Law 100-91 (the National Parks Overflights Act of 1987)
asked the National Park Service to identify the nature and
scope of overflight problems in the National Park System,
the nature of its effects (adverse and beneficial), and what
minimum altitude aircraft should maintain when flying
over National Parks. The National Park Service came to the
following conclusions in its Report to Congress (1995):
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000
• Commercial air tourism was a National Park overflight
issue that the Federal Aviation Administration and
National Park Service needed to address.
• Establishing a minimum altitude for aircraft overflying
National Parks was neither feasible nor necessary because of the complex nature of impacts on individual
park units. The recommended approach was to use a full
range of methods and tools (for example, voluntary
agreements, incentives for use of quieter aircraft, spatial zoning, altitude restrictions, temporal restrictions,
noise budgets, limits on operations, and air tour operations as park concessions).
• The Federal Aviation Administration should develop an
operational rule to regulate commercial air tourism
over National Parks, triggered by the National Park
Service, to address this park overflight issue. The National Park Service further recommended that the Federal Aviation Administration implement a rule that
would aid in the preservation and/or restoration of
natural quiet—the natural and cultural “soundscapes”
of the National Parks.
In recognition of the growing significance, complexity, and
controversy of this issue, Secretary of the Interior Babbitt
and Secretary of Transportation Pena formed, in 1993, a
joint Interagency Working Group to begin addressing the
recommendations in the National Park Service Report to
Congress. They concurred that increased air tour operations
at Grand Canyon and other National Parks have significantly diminished the National Park experience for some
park visitors and that measures could and should be taken
to preserve a quality park experience for visitors while
providing access to the airspace over National Parks. But
despite this attention, progress toward resolution of problems was slow, and most of the attention of this group was
focused on Grand Canyon National Park, where P. L. 100-91
mandated a “substantial restoration of natural quiet.”
National Parks Overflights Working
Group _________________________
Seeing that the complexity and controversy surrounding
Grand Canyon rulemaking resulted in rather desultory
progress, President Clinton, in a 1996 Earth Day Executive
Memorandum, directed the Secretary of Transportation to
work with the Secretary of the Interior to quickly complete
Grand Canyon airspace rulemaking and to work with the
Secretary of the Interior to develop a rule that would effectively address National Park commercial air tourism overflights. While the agencies were subsequently able to complete Grand Canyon rulemaking in a timely fashion, careful
consideration of the issues and the recent history of the
overflights debate led the agencies to choose a new approach
to the important and difficult challenge of regulating commercial air tourism over National Parks. In May 1997, the
Department of Transportation and Department of the Interior jointly established the National Parks Overflights Working Group (NPOWG), with the objective of letting affected
parties develop recommendations on a regulation that would
fairly regulate the air tour industry while protecting park
resources and National Park visitors.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000
This first-of-its-kind joint Federal advisory committee
was convened from a group of private individuals with broad
knowledge and experience in air tour operations, commercial air transportation, and general aviation—as well as in
the policies, resources, and management of National Parks.
Rotary and fixed-wing operations, and private pilot interests were represented within the group, as were National
Park and local conservation perspectives, and the interests
of Native Americans and tribal governments.
Specifically, NPOWG’s task was to develop a recommended
notice of proposed rulemaking that would define a process
for reducing or preventing the adverse effects of commercial
air tour operations over units of the National Park System.
National Parks Overflights Working Group
Recommendation
Over the course of a year, the NPOWG achieved a consensus beyond what the agencies had thought possible. To a
major extent, this was not the product of a mechanical
compromise or deal-making. It was the product of long hours
of analysis, deliberation, and debate on the fundamental
principles and detailed procedures. Individual members
approached the issues from widely varying perspectives and
held different views on commercial activities, resource protection, and visitor experiences in National Parks. One thing
that helped was that NPOWG made the conscious decision
at the outset to conduct its deliberations in open meetings.
Throughout a series of often difficult meetings, the group
sought and accepted both technical information and counsel
from many people, including private citizens and agency
professionals within the Federal Aviation Administration
and the National Park Service. Common ground grew from
a willingness to openly communicate and honestly question
positions and concerns. In the end, the members were able
to establish a shared sense of reality regarding the management of air tourism over National Parks and agree upon a
fair and workable approach.
In December 1997, the NPOWG recommended a process
for regulating commercial air tourism over parks and subsequent Federal Aviation regulation. This recommendation
was endorsed by both the National Park System Advisory
Board and the Federal Aviation Administration Aviation
Rulemaking Advisory Committee, which directed the
Federal Aviation Administration to cooperate with the
National Park Service in drafting a formal “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” based on the NPOWG’s recommended
outline.
In constructing their recommendation, the NPOWG built
around a set of fundamental agreements that the needed
Federal Aviation Regulation should:
Be Process-Oriented—An effective regulatory framework
should be based on principles that would apply system-wide,
and practices that can be applied to all park units. Provisions, such as exemptions for the safe operation of aircraft on
takeoffs and landings, should allow for differences in terrain, weather conditions, and authorized uses within a
framework that also would provide appropriate protection of
wilderness values and sensitive resources.
13
Protect Park Resources—The sounds of nature are among
the intrinsic elements that combine to form the natural
environment of parks. This “soundscape” is an inherent
component of “the scenery, the natural and historic objects,
and the wildlife” in some National Parks, and visitors to
those parks ought to have the opportunity to enjoy quiet and
the sounds of nature unimpaired in at least a portion of the
park for at least part of their visit.
Be a Cooperative Process—The process should be a cooperative one because this is what would allow the two agencies to preserve their essential responsibilities intact. The
Federal Aviation Administration could retain its role as the
manager of America’s airspace and its responsibility to
ensure safety in the sky. The National Park Service could
retain its responsibility and authority to protect park resources and values and visitor experiences.
Be a Planning Process—The process should be constructed,
in part, as a planning process. After an air tour operator
would apply to the Federal Aviation Administration to
overfly a park, the National Park Service should determine
the potential impacts to resources and visitors, and these
should be addressed in the course of an air tour management
planning process conducted by the two agencies. Agreements and environmental decision documents should be
signed by both agencies. Consequently, this process could
effectively combine publicly accountable planning procedures based on the National Environmental Policy Act,
including full public participation in the development of
alternatives and proposed actions.
Be Implemented by the Federal Aviation Administration—The agreements and decisions in the resulting Air
Tour Management Plan should be implemented through
Federal Aviation Administration issued “Operations Specifications,” the standard tool for managing commercial air
carriers.
Use Clearly Defined Management Tools—The regulation
should provide clearly defined management tools that could
be employed to prevent or reduce impacts where air tours
exist or are determined to be appropriate.
Treat Visitors Equally—All National Park visitors, including flightseeing visitors, would be treated equally in this
process. All visitor activities in National Parks must occur
“in such manner and by such means” to prevent impairment
of park resources and values and their enjoyment by others.
Affect Only Commercial Air Tour Operations—The process would only apply to commercial air tours, not general
aviation, since air tour flights purposefully occur over parks,
at lower altitudes, more frequently, and often at the same
locations and attractions favored by ground-based visitors.
Be Fair to Air Tour Operators—The process should provide a means to significantly lessen or mitigate existing air
tour operations and prevent unilateral expansion of air tour
operations where they do not yet exist. It should not allow for
a unilateral ban. Existing operations should continue under
an interim operating authority while the two agencies develop a joint Air Tour Management Plan (ATMP). New air
tour operations should not be authorized to start at other
parks until an ATMP is completed.
Be Implemented Through Regulation and Legislation—
Although this process should be based on a workable combination of recognized policies, procedures, and responsibilities within the National Park Service and Federal Aviation
14
Administration, these agreements are so novel that questions may arise within the agencies and the public about the
authority of the agencies to implement it. Consequently, the
agencies should proceed with the development of a proposed
rule and seek to have it adopted legislatively.
Reflecting these fundamental agreements, the core of the
NPOWG recommendation (refer to appendix A of this article) is that commercial air tour operations would not be
conducted over National Parks except in compliance with an
ATMP developed jointly by the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Park Service. The ATMP, which
would be approved by both agencies, would authorize, authorize with limits, or prohibit air tour operations over
National Parks. The Federal Aviation Administration would
implement the ATMP recommendations by issuing Operations Specifications to the air tour operator reflecting those
agreements and decisions.
There is little doubt that the cooperative use and blending
of agency authorities, policies, and procedures are very
unique. And it has withstood intense scrutiny. The NPOWG
recommendations are so strong and cohesive that the recommendation to implement through regulation and legislation
has come to pass. Even as the Federal Aviation Administration has worked cooperatively with the National Park Service on the development of a proposed Federal Aviation
Regulation, parallel legislation has passed both the U.S.
House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate—a testament
to the soundness of the recommendation and the integrity of
the NPOWG members.
The Challenge of
Implementation _________________
Even the best ideas cannot survive poor implementation,
and the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Park
Service, air tour operators, the environmental community,
and the general public face many challenges ahead. Some of
the major challenges include:
1. How effective a working relationship can the Federal
Aviation Administration and National Park Service build
around this process? The Federal Aviation Administration
will implement the regulation/law through their Western
Regional Office in Los Angeles, while the National Park
Service is likely to provide a park support office in Denver.
Coordination between the agencies will be a major challenge, and getting the right mix of personnel in each office
will be essential.
2. When the rule/law goes into effect in 1999, as many as
30 to 50 Air Tour Management Planning processes may be
triggered. Despite Congressional interest in completing this
process quickly, without a significant infusion of resources
to the two agencies (unlikely), only a few Air Tour Management Plans will be completed each year. One of the first
priorities of the two agencies will be to address the issue of
how to schedule the ATMP process and how to set priorities
in the context of this process. The success of the first few
planning efforts will set the tenor for the remainder of the
plans. The agencies will need to carefully select the first
parks for ATMP completion, and close attention will be
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000
needed from management and senior staff. It will be important to do this well in order to convert skeptics to believers.
3. Funding will be a significant challenge to both agencies
because most of the funding and personnel are likely to come
from existing resources. This will be especially challenging
for small parks with very little budget to start with. Both
agencies may need some supplemental resources, and that
will be a challenge.
4. The agencies will need to address some important
scientific challenges as well. What are the best, and least
costly, methods of doing acoustic monitoring and modeling
in low-noise environment parks? And because the new
regulation/law requires that an acoustic standard(s) be set
in parks based on an enormous range of possible park
resource and visitor experience factors, how is this to be done
in an acceptable manner?
5. And finally, how can air tour operators become more
effective visitor service providers in National Parks? As
these commercial interests engage the government, the
public, and other interest groups in this process, they are
likely to evolve into more responsive service providers. An
important challenge will be to explore how the National
Park Service and the Federal Aviation Administration can
assist in this process.
Conclusions ____________________
The Federal Aviation Administration and the National
Park Service have adopted a unique way to address the
controversial issue of managing commercial air tourism over
National Parks. The agencies chose to form a citizen advisory board comprised of the most affected parties to develop
recommendations on a Federal Aviation Regulation for that
purpose. The NPOWG has proven to be a great success,
largely due to the extraordinary efforts of group members.
The cooperative process they recommended skillfully blends
the authorities and management practices of the two agencies into a process that all parties believe to be a fair and
effective compromise. That these recommendations have
been adopted by the agencies and by both Houses of Congress is testament to their practicality and fairness.
Implementation will be a challenging process in terms of
cooperative administration, budget, priority setting, and
science, but if successful, it will be a useful model to explore
wherever this issue may arise around the world in parks and
wildland areas.
Appendix A: Proposed Air Tour
Management Plan Process ________
The detailed outline for the proposed Air Tour Managemnt
Plan (ATMP) process incorporates the necessary steps to
meet National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance requirements, fosters close cooperation and coordination between the Federal Aviation Administration and the
National Park Service and with interested public, and incorporates relevant park planning and the recommended rule
stipulations for air tour management plans.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000
Air Tour Operator Initiates Process
Existing Operations—Air tour operator requests to
continue existing service via Interim Operating Authority.
• An air tour operator already operating commercial air
tours within 0.5 mile outside the boundary of a park and
below 5,000 feet above ground level over the park or less
than 1 mile laterally from any geographic feature within
the park may continue to do so provided that within 90
days after the effective date of the final rule (1) an air
tour operator conducting air tours under Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91 applies for an operating
certificate under Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Part 119 or (2) an air tour operator conducting operations under Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 121
or 135 applies for appropriate operations specifications.
This triggers the initiation of an ATMP. The air tour
operator would meet with the park superintendent and
appropriate Federal Aviation Administration staff to
develop an interim operating authority that embodies
the existing service, as documented to Federal Aviation
Administration and National Park Service satisfaction.
Modifications to the interim operating authority may be
made subsequently if the agencies agree that these
modifications improve protection of park resources and
values.
• The draft interim operating authority would be presented to the public for information and comment.
Pertinent public comments would be considered in developing the final interim operating authority.
• An interim operating authority (a letter to the air tour
operator signed by the park superintendent and the
designated Federal Aviation Administration representative) that incorporates the agreed-upon operations
and requirements (including any reporting requirements) would be issued to the air tour operator within
2 to 3 months. The interim operating authority would
remain in place until the park’s air tour management
plan is developed and approved.
• An air tour operator conducting air tour operations
under Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91, but
not applying for an operating certificate under Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 119, must meet the
very limited exception described in the rule (no more
than a combined total of five flights per 30-day period for
all such operators), and must secure a letter of agreement signed by the Federal Aviation Administration
and the park superintendent describing the conditions
under which such flights will be conducted. This should
be completed within 1 to 3 months.
New Operations—New air tour operator applies for
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 135 Operations
Specifications.
• A new air tour operator who desires to begin flying
commercial air tours within 0.5 mile outside the boundary of a park and below 5,000 feet above ground level
over the park or less than 1 mile laterally from any geographic feature within the park must apply to the Federal
Aviation Administration for operations specifications.
15
• Federal Aviation Administration staff would notify the
National Park Service that a formal proposal has been
submitted by the air tour operator to conduct air tours
over the park.
• A joint Federal Aviation Administration-National Park
Service ATMP process would be initiated upon receipt of
the aforementioned operator’s completed application.
Air Tour Management Plan Process
Started (1 to 2 months)
Conduct Internal Scoping Meeting—Appropriate Federal Aviation Administration staff and park superintendent
would initiate the ATMP process by convening an internal
scoping meeting(s) that includes the joint Federal Aviation
Administration-National Park Service planning team. The
purpose of the meeting(s) would be to agree on:
• The sufficiency of data (for example, aircraft operations
data, noise or other impact data, visitor surveys, information on critical wildlife habitat and cultural resources) and the need for new or updated data.
• The relationship to other park plans, including the
park’s general management plan, resource management plan, and visitor services plan.
• Compliance—the NEPA process must be followed, including making a decision on whether to develop (1) an
environmental assessment (EA) leading to either issuance of a finding of no significant impact or (2) the
preparation of a notice of intent, draft environmental
impact statement (EIS), final environmental impact
statement, and record of decision.
• Interdisciplinary planning team composition—identify
core members and consultants.
• Schedule.
• Public involvement approach—determine political and
public situation and develop an appropriate public involvement strategy. How many public meetings should
be held and where? Would news releases and newsletters be appropriate?
• Products—scoping letter, newsletter(s), alternatives
workbook, environmental documents, draft and final
air tour management plans.
• Scope of work—what are the parameters of the project?
Will it entail one park or will two or more parks be
included in the air tour management plan?
• Roles and responsibilities for Federal Aviation Administration staff, National Park Service staff (park and
planning team), air tour operator(s), Native American
tribe(s), if appropriate, and any other stakeholders
(such as nearby or adjacent landowners).
• Costs for data acquisition, travel, salaries, and plan
production.
Prepare Joint Federal Aviation and National Park
Service Project Agreement—The Project Agreement
would be a contract between the Federal Aviation Administration and various National Park Service offices and would
include the aforementioned internal scoping meeting agreements (scope of work). The planning team leader would
write the project agreement, and it would be approved by the
16
park superintendent and the designated Federal Aviation
Administration representative.
Public Scoping and Planning Orientation
and Analysis Conducted (2 to 4 months)
Identify, Acquire, and Analyze Data—During the
public scoping period, appropriate Federal Aviation Administration and National Park Service personnel (superintendent, park staff, and planning team members) would identify data needs and analyze data and/or initiate necessary
research or procurement of required data (such as, ambient
baseline sound levels, intrusive noise sources, visitor use,
critical wildlife habitat, significant park resources, and
wilderness). If extensive data were required, this planning
phase could take longer than 2 to 4 months because data
collection may need to be conducted at the peak tourist
season when the impacts on park visitors would be expected
to be the greatest.
Team Orientation Trip—Conduct joint Federal Aviation Administration and National Park Service planning
team orientation trip to:
• Confirm park purpose and significance statements,
management zoning, sensitive areas for wildlife, visitor
experiences, Native American lands, etc., and how the
proposed overflight(s) relate to them.
• Enhance team members’ familiarity with the park resources and related issues and the overflight proposal(s),
status, and air tour issues, including Federal Aviation
Administration safety and operation concerns and Native American issues. If appropriate, the planning team
would meet with Native American tribe(s) and any
other stakeholders to discuss their concerns.
Initiate Public Scoping—The National Park Service
planning team leader, in conjunction with the Federal Aviation Administration counterpart, would prepare and distribute a joint notice of intent in the “Federal Register” (if an
Environmental Impact Statement is to be prepared) and a
public scoping newsletter (may also post the newsletter on
the Internet). The purpose of the notice of intent/newsletter
would be to (1) inform the public about the overflight
proposal(s), issues, process, and schedule, and (2) request
comments on the scope of the plan and provide information
on any scoping meetings. If significant historic resources
might be affected by the plan, the State historic preservation
office would be contacted and apprised of the situation,
issues, and scope of the project. If significant natural resources might be affected by the plan (for example, threatened and endangered species), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the appropriate State wildlife agency would also
be consulted. Ultimately, the primary purpose of public
scoping is to assist in determining the range of issues to be
addressed in the NEPA document.
Conduct Public Scoping Meetings—The joint planning team would then conduct public scoping meetings at a
location(s) in or near the park and in the regional area. The
purpose of the meetings would be to inform the public about
the overflight proposal(s), issues, process, and schedule, and
to obtain public comments.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000
Analyze Public Comments—Subsequent to the initial
public scoping period, the joint planning team would analyze
public comments and confirm or modify the ATMP scope of
work accordingly.
Alternatives Developed (2 to 4 months)
Prepare Preliminary Alternatives—After public comments were obtained from the scoping publications and scoping
meetings, the joint Federal Aviation Administration-National
Park Service planning team would develop a preliminary set
of alternatives that would cover a reasonable range of overflight options, including a no-action alternative.
Conduct Public Involvement—The joint planning team
would then prepare and distribute a public alternatives
workbook and/or conduct workshops on the draft alternatives at the park and in the regional area. If necessary, the
State historic preservation office, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, other appropriate Federal agencies, State and local
governments, organizations, and individuals would also be
involved in this stage of planning.
Analyze Public Involvement and Select a Proposed
Action—Subsequently, the joint planning team would meet
to analyze public comments on the workbook and/or alternative meetings. Planning team members would modify the
preliminary alternatives according to pertinent public input
and then select a proposed action. Modifications to the
alternatives and selection of a proposed action would require
agreement between the designated Federal Aviation Administration representative and the park superintendent.
Inform Agency Leaders—Senior planning team members from both agencies would brief their agency leadership
on the selected proposed action. For the National Park
Service, the planning team leader and the park superintendent would brief the regional director.
Draft Air Tour Management Plan/
Environmental Impact Statement or
Environmental Assessment Prepared
and Distributed (6 to 12 months)
Prepare Draft Plan—The joint planning team would
prepare an air tour management plan/environmental assessment or a draft air tour management plan/environmental impact statement. The Federal Aviation Administration
would be responsible for writing the air tour operations and
safety sections of the plan, and the National Park Service
would focus on the park-related components of the plan
(including park visitor experiences and natural and cultural
resources). The draft plan would then be distributed for
Federal Aviation Administration and National Park Service
internal review and analysis prior to submittal and request
for comments by the air tour operator(s) and other stakeholders.
Review and Print Draft Plan—The joint planning
team would meet and agree on the internal review comments to be incorporated in the document (the senior planning team members from each agency would need to concur
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000
on the changes). The draft plan would be printed and
distributed (including via Internet if desired) to the public
for review and comment.
Conduct Public Meetings—One or more public meetings on the draft plan would be held by the joint planning
team as appropriate, depending on the issues, stakeholders,
and level of public interest and controversy. Meetings would
also be conducted with appropriate Federal, State, and local
government officials.
Environmental Assessment or
Environmental Impact Statement
Process Completed
At this point in the process, there is need for completion of
an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact
Statement. The following steps describe the differences:
For an Environmental Assessment, prepare and distribute a Finding of No Significant Impact (1 month).
If an Environmental Assessment has been prepared and
the proposed action is determined to constitute a major
Federal action that would significantly affect the human
environment, a separate EIS process would be initiated.
However, if it is determined that the proposed action in an
Environmental Assessment would not constitute a major
Federal action that significantly affects the quality of the
human environment, a separate “Finding of No Significant
Impact” would be prepared after the public review period
(usually 30 days), signed by joint Federal Aviation Administration and National Park Service signatories, and distributed to the public. This would end the NEPA process for an
Environmental Assessment.
OR
For an Environmental Impact Statement, prepare and
distribute a Final Air Tour Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (5 to 7 months) and prepare a Record
of Decision (1 month).
Analyze Public Comments—At the end of the public
60-day review period for the draft document, the joint
planning team would meet and analyze the public comments. The senior members from each agency would agree
on modifications to the document.
Prepare Final Plan—The joint Federal Aviation Administration-National Park Service planning team would
then prepare a final Air Tour Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement and distribute it for internal
review as per the draft plan. The final Plan/Environmental
Impact Statement would include responses to substantive
comments on the draft plan received from agencies, organizations, Native American tribe(s), and the general public. It
would also address monitoring and reporting requirements.
Review, Print, and Distribute Final Plan—The joint
planning team would meet and agree on the internal review
comments to be incorporated in the document (senior agency
planning team members would need to concur on the changes).
The final plan would be printed and distributed to the public
17
and appropriate government agencies for their information
and comment (may also post on the Internet if desired).
Prepare a Record of Decision—At the end of a 30-day
public “no action” period following distribution of the final
Air Tour Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, the joint planning team would prepare a “Record of
Decision” and distribute it for review (Federal Aviation
Administration, National Park Service, air tour operator,
Native American tribe(s), and any other stakeholders). The
“Record of Decision” would include the rationale for the
selection of an alternative as well as appropriate mitigation
measures to minimize environmental harm.
Print and Distribute Record of Decision—Review
comments would be incorporated into the “Record of Decision” (as agreed upon by the senior agency planning team
18
members), signed by joint Federal Aviation Administration
and National Park Service signatories, printed, and distributed to the public. This would end the NEPA requirements
for the EIS process. (Time estimates provided for completion
of each step in the process are based upon close coordination
and communication between cooperating agencies and any
necessary research being conducted quickly.)
Final Outcome __________________
Federal aviation administration issues operations specifications (with or without limitations) for park flightseeing
based on the Air Tour Management Plan, or denies air tours
at the park unit.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000