Save Natural Quiet at the Grand Canyon
Posted: March 18, 2010 Filed under: Uncategorized 8 Comments
The McCain amendment (an amendment to the FAA re-authorization bill) would stop progress on resolving aircraft noise at the Grand Canyon by legislating existing conditions and preventing the National Park Service from trying to improve protections for natural quiet at our premier national park.
The amendment defines “substantial restoration of natural quiet”, required at Grand Canyon by the National Parks Overflight Act of 1987, to 50 % of the park for 75% of the time. This weak definition is one the NPS was trying to improve upon with their environmental analysis which they expect to bring to the public later this year. The current 50/75 goal means that half of the Grand Canyon can be an unmitigated noise sacrifice zone, while the “protected” part still allows aircraft noise to be heard up to once every 4 minutes – we should do better than that at the Grand Canyon.
One of the top NPS priorities was restoring natural quiet to the wild Marble Canyon arm of the river and park, but this amendment allows flights to occur all day and prevents the NPS from doing anything about it.
Yes, it’s taken a long time for the NPS and FAA to finally get together around a common planning process, but now they are nearing the end of a lengthy, thorough and expensive analysis of alternative ways to improve the natural experience at the Grand Canyon. The NPS EIS is to be issued later this year, and the public will be given an opportunity to comment and get involved in the final choices. But if the McCain amendment passes, then the public will not have any voice and no changes can be made in the future.
The McCain amendment is a direct attack on Grand Canyon National Park on behalf of the commercial air tour industry. It takes the Park Service out of managing a vital piece of the visitor experience at our flagship national park – the natural quiet of this world class treasure, naturally one of the quietest places on earth.
Timeline: The Senate votes on the destructive McCain Amendment this week, possibly today, March 17.
McCain Spin: “The Arizona senator is tired of waiting for the FAA and NPS to reach an agreement over restoring ‘natural quiet.'” (AP Mar 17, 2010)
The Facts: Yes, we have waited since 1987 to get a good management plan for the Grand Canyon. The Park Service has completed the new plan and is ready to release it in April, in just a few weeks!
McCain’s ‘midnight rider’ amendment is a gift to the air tour industry. Together with the Nevada senators, he is back-stabbing the Park Service just when they have completed their work.
McCain’s amendment would legislate existing noisy conditions and stop progress. The McCain amendment is a direct attack on Grand Canyon National Park on behalf of the commercial air tour industry.
During the 1987 Senate floor debate, McCain said “When it comes to a choice between the interests of our park system, and those who profit from it, without a doubt, the interests of the land must come first.” We think this applies in 2010 as it did in 1987.
Please Help: Please call Senator McCain (202-224-2235) now. Ask to talk to a live person and tell them that the Overflights Act amendment is 1) destructive to the Grand Canyon, and 2) unnecessary because the Park Service is ready to release the draft environmental impact statement that will present the preferred management plan, and 3) cuts out all those who love the Grand Canyon from having their say.
Possibly more importantly, please call Senator Mark Udall (202-224-5941), chair of the National Parks Committee, with the same message. Thank you!
More Information: To learn more details, please call Jim McCarthy (928-779-3748), or Rob Smith (602-254-8362).
http://action.sierraclub.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=165821.0
Recreation Law 
I'm not a fan of the Sierra Club but your information is far from accurate or even close. I work in the Canyon still and the droning of the airplanes and helicopters wakes you up in the morning and by the time the day ends you have a pounding headache. This is not a situation where it is a minor annoyance, this is close to 8 hours in 2 different places in the canyon where you can't hear yourself think.
LikeLike
Thank you for pasting the posts from your source. It was helpful, and well interesting. I was told that the “working group” actually had developed an alternative about 2 years ago to which all the stakeholders (environmentalists, Hikers, Boaters, Tribes, tour operators, FAA, NPS, FWS, etc.) agreed to….. except one… the Sierra Club. In my view, the alternative everyone agreed to (save one) would've been FAR better than what will likely be the end result now. Why do they do that? I blame them for being too radical and never wanting to agree with anything or considering any compromise whatsoever. I think I figured out why they're that way: they love to go back and brag that “they” were the only ones who held fast, didn't give in, etc. And that mantra gets more members. If they should get run over and “lose” anyway, they get to claim they went down fighting. Again, great for membership. What everyone doesn't realize is that that strategy, taken too far (like in this issue), creates a backlash that is worse for everyone. to “just say no” may sound good, but is a far too radical strategy to be of any long-term value in this day and age. In my view, don't write McCain, write the Sierra Club and say “thanks a lot”. Believe me, if the Alternative everyone else agreed on was good enough for the Grand Canyon Trust and NPCA, the Sierra Club should've lined up instead of being hypocritical, chasing the almighty dollar. It's thanks to them that years of work and compromise on all sides unraveled and stirred the ire of the good Senator. Now everybody pays. YOU BLEW IT, SIERRA CLUB !!!
LikeLike
The McCain legislation is an odd bit of politics.
First, 22 years ago, McCain co-sponsored a bill
that became law which required the “substantial
restoration of natural quiet and the visitor
experience” in Grand Canyon National Park. The
way to achieve quiet was supposed to be
recommended by a working group of stakeholders by
2008. We almost made it. The last step in the
process was for GRCA to construct alternatives
(remember the NEPA process?) for achieving the
goal, informed by our two-plus years of talks.
The Park did that and advised the working group
of the draft proposed alternatives. The draft
preferred alternative seemed to make the noise
restrictions even tighter than they needed to be
in order to meet the letter of the law. My guess
is that the air tour industry people didn't like
it and went to Congress for clarity and support.
That the air tour industry, or indeed anybody,
went to Congress isn't a surprise. If they hadn't
needed to, then the environmental side would have
gone to Congress for clarity and would have come
away with more restrictive legislation. Somebody
was going to sue or lobby — probably. We all
hoped it wouldn't come to that but we aren't
surprised that it did. It came to that for obvious and frustrating reasons.
First it took FAA and NPS 18 years to form a
working group to study the problem. Then, under
co-leadership of FAA and NPS, the group had only
two years to make recommendations for management
of the airspace over Grand Canyon. It seems like
the Gov wasted 18 years. During that time the air
tour industry was self-policing and really did clean up their act somewhat.
Second, the original McCain law was ambiguous in
the matter of passenger jet noise; in one place
it was exempted and in another it wasn't. If the
noise from high jets were exempted then it made
sense to measure and control all the other noise.
If it weren't exempted, the Park would never be
quiet. So, to clarify, McCain sent the working
group a dandy little letter telling us to ignore
the high jets in defiance of several court cases
that interpreted his law telling us to not ignore
them. Whom were we to believe?
So now, with this new bill, I feel that the
working group has been slapped directly in the
face. McCain says to hurry up even though his
original law slowed us down. He says the working
group needs time to do its work and then when
somebody doesn't like our work they get Mr. McCain to overturn it.
But to be fair, Superintendent Martin points out
that there are some good parts in the proposed
legislation. Martin is a strong and direct
manager and member of the working group. His
desire is quite clearly to protect and restore
the Park's quiet. He doesn't seem to be a patsy
for the air tour industry. Nor is the air tour
industry without virtue. But they have power and persuasion — apparently.
I had hoped to be done with this by now but it
looks like I'll have to analyze the whole bill to
see how it stacks up against the draft
alternatives and against the original McCain law
and against my positions as a private boater on
the working group fighting for quiet in the Park.
Same for this post. I know the poster, just don't have permission.
LikeLike
(cont.)
I attended meeting after meeting, and testified in more hearings than
I can remember, with the same people saying pretty much the same
thing, time after time. At one Congressional Field hearing in
Flagstaff, Scenic Airlines brought in two busloads of rowdy, ill-
mannered pilots. It was like being in a high school locker room, as
they cheered each other, booed and hissed at me. Several pilots
testified, and all took their turns abusing me from the podium. One
pilot, who also worked at the Grand Canyon Tower, testified that if he
heard a distress call from the river he would ignore it. “You can keep
your rotting corpse,” he said, looking straight at me. That was during
the days that our best way of getting help in the event of injury or
illness was to use a ground-to-air radio, hoping pilots would hear and
forward our message. So he was saying that he wouldn't help my friends
because of my testimony. That pretty much knocked the stuffing out of
me.
I was heavily involved in the process for about 8 years, representing
Grand Canyon River Guides. We made only tiny progress in some areas,
while the number of flights more than tripled. I'm still involved,
around the edges. But I guess I just got tired of spending so much
time, for no compensation, and losing. I think Rob Smith was at the
first meeting I attended in the 1980s; he's still going at it, as are
several others I remember from those days. Thanks, Dave, for being
there as well.
There has always been a big push toward the use of what they call
“quiet technology.” It's not quiet at all; it's just not as loud as it
could be. These aren't gliders; you can still hear them just fine.
Operators who have these aircraft, like Scenic Airways, have long had
the ear (or something else) of McCain. This legislation would provide
“incentives” for companies using less noisy aircraft, such as
increased allocation.
Remember when commercial river outfitters were told to convert to 4-
cycle motors? They weren't given incentives; their allocation wasn't
increased. The only “carrot” was that they got to continue to do
business in the Park.
McCain is right about one thing. This has gone on way too long. The
main problem has been that it was to be a cooperative task between the
NPS and the FAA. The NPS, whose job it is to protect the resource, is
underfunded and relatively weak compared with the well-funded FAA.
Also the FAA's mission was, until recently, two-fold — to promote
aviation, and to keep it safe. These sometimes conflicting goals were
found to lead to some crashes, so the promotion part was eliminated a
few years ago. But the same guys still work there, and I'm not sure
anyone told them. Nevertheless, the air tour operators and the FAA
have delayed the process for many years. Every time some small success
seemed on the horizon, they managed another delay. This is just more
of the same.
Write or call McCain. He doesn't want to lose to the idiot. (God, can
you imagine the insult?)
I do not have permission of the poster of this comment from another forum so I have not used the persons name. However the person is a friend of mine.
LikeLike
Regulations for managing aircraft was to have happened a long time
ago. The Overflights Act, calling for restoration of natural quiet in
Grand Canyon, passed in 1986. They had a whole lot of meetings and
hearings, year after year. I got involved because, as both a pilot and
a boater, I thought I could inject some balance into the discussion.
The Air Tour Industry didn't want balance. They fought every proposed
rule, mostly pulling the “safety” card. The flight corridors, they
said, compressed the aircraft into too limited amount of space, which
was dangerous. (That's ridiculous). When we suggested the obvious
solution was to limit the number of flights, that was unamerican and
illegal. When the FAA imposed curfews, allowing a bit of solace in the
mornings and evenings, they were outraged. The Las Vegas operators
claimed that they would all take off around the same time, to enter
the airspace at the exact same instant and crash into each other. As
though hitting the airspace at 8 am took priority over seeing and
avoiding other aircraft. I thought they should hire better pilots. But
the FAA caved in, and curfews weren't applied to Las Vegas operators.
LikeLike
Sorry you feel that way. Could you elaborate on what specifically is incorrect with what I posted? I provided specifics which, if you feel are in error, I would appreciate a rebuttal that offers at least an equal level of detail. I don't wish to be argumentative, just enjoin you on ferreting out the true facts, which is far different from the rhetoric.
LikeLike
Sorry but your facts are off, big time. I've been involved in this fight for 20 years, starting with Bush 1. The information I posted came from the Grand Canyon River Guides Association which has had a member at every meeting on the issue.
The public record will also prove you wrong. There is a great discussion of what occurred on the Grand Canyon Private Boaters forum on Yahoo. The information is being posted by GCRG members who attended the meetings.
Besides if you had real information or facts you would not have posted this anonymously????
LikeLike
James, I think you may be unaware of the true details surrounding the Grand Canyon overflights issues that have been percolating under the surface and likely what spurred McCain to offer the Amendment. First, I need to remind everyone that it was McCain who introduced the original legislation in 1987 mandating the restoration of natural quiet. When the NPS started trying to make their own loopholes out of his statutory language, he tried to correct them as to what HE had meant regarding his legislative intent. He sent letters, and even staffers. The NPS wasn't interested. For example, with regard to hi altitude overflights, which nobody had EVER complained about, they wanted that noise counted. More egregious, was the way the NPS defined “restoration of natural quiet” and then creatively interpreted it later when the results weren't to their liking. They defined restoration as when 50% or more of the park is naturally quiet 75-100% of the day. Seems straightforward enough. And for years, NPS was just sure that conditions were far worse than that threshold. When they finally agreed on a way to measure the noise, they discovered MORE than 50% of the park (55% I think) was already quiet enough, so the goal had been reached. So, NPS decided next to get creative and say that the 50% “or more” in the definition, can be interpreted to mean, well.. whatever NPS wants it to be between 50 and 100%! Talk about a rigged game with no accountability. That's called a “moving target” and clearly unfair. The NPS has a responsibility to all stakeholders to be fair and reasonable. They have never wanted to define the problem in any objective manner, only press for a never-ending string of increasingly onerous restrictions in pursuit of an ever-moving goal line. NPS has shown that it has never been serious about solving the problem, just perpetually redefining it whenever it appears resolved. THAT'S why John McCain said “ENOUGH” and decided to step in and provide the proper guidance they have sorely needed to get the job done that he, on behalf of the American people, had expected them to do, and one which they have failed miserably at.
LikeLike