special flight rules in the vicinity of grand canyon ... · the grand canyon national park (gcnp)...

Final SupplementalEnvironmental Assessment

February 2000

Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity ofGrand Canyon National Park

Prepared For

U. S. Department of TransportationFederal Aviation Administration

Final Environmental AssessmentSpecial Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park

Foreword

The Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) was published in June 1999.Since the document was published, parts of the proposed rule have been altered inresponse to public and agency comments. The major changes between the Draft SEAand Final SEA are as follows:

• The operations in support of the Hualapai Tribe’s economic development at GrandCanyon West are exempted from the proposed operations limitation rule.

• A turnaround has been added in the Zuni Point Corridor in the vicinity of GunthersCastle.

• Operational counts have been modified based on more up to date information.• The Desert View FFZ has been modified to extend eastward only to the GCNP

boundary.• The SFRA boundary has been modified on the southeast corner in response to

comments from the general aviation community regarding the Sunny MilitaryOperating Area, and latitude and longitude dimensions within the proposed final rulehave been corrected.

• The description of the future Bright Angel Incentive Corridor has been corrected.• The Toroweap/Shinumo FFZ has been modified to not include any Hualapai

reservation lands.• The wording in the document has been clarified based on agency and public

comments.

Grand Canyon National ParkEnvironmental Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

i

CHAPTER ONE – BACKGROUND AND PROPOSED ACTION

1.1 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED .......................................................................... 1-5

1.3 CONSULTATION AND SCOPING...................................................... 1-5

1.4 PROPOSED ACTION............................................................................ 1-6

CHAPTER TWO - ALTERNATIVES

2.1 PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED ALTERNATIVES.............................. 2-1

2.2 COMMERCIAL AIR TOUR ROUTE ALTERNATIVESCONSIDERED.................................................................................................. 2-5

2.3 ALTERNATIVES STUDIED IN DETAIL ........................................... 2-92.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action .....................................................................................2-92.3.2 Alternative 2 – Central Route (Preferred Alternative) ..........................................2-102.3.3 Alternative 3 – Northern Route ...........................................................................2-122.3.4 Alternative 4 – Southern Route ...........................................................................2-132.3.5 Summary Comparison Evaluation of Alternatives ................................................2-13

CHAPTER THREE - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 REGIONAL CONTEXT ........................................................................ 3-1

3.2 GRAND CANYON ................................................................................. 3-2

3.3 NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITIES ............................................. 3-2


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ii

3.4 GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK ............................................... 3-53.4.1 South Rim.............................................................................................................3-63.4.2 North Rim.............................................................................................................3-73.4.3 Marble Canyon .....................................................................................................3-73.4.4 Tuweep.................................................................................................................3-73.4.5 Inner Canyon ........................................................................................................3-7

3.5 CLIMATIC CONDITIONS ................................................................... 3-8

3.6 PHYSICAL RESOURCES..................................................................... 3-93.6.1 Popular Trails and Sights at GCNP .......................................................................3-93.6.2 Grand Canyon West Tourism and Recreation Areas in the

Hualapai Reservation .........................................................................................3-103.6.3 Historic/Cultural/Archaeological Sites in the GCNP ............................................3-103.6.4 Historic/Cultural/Archaeological Sites in the Hualapai Reservation......................3-123.6.5 Wild and Scenic River Segments in GCNP ..........................................................3-15

3.7 NATURAL RESOURCES.................................................................... 3-153.7.1 Wilderness and Wildlife Resources in the GCNP .................................................3-153.7.2 Wilderness and Wildlife Resources in the Hualapai Reservation...........................3-163.7.3 Noise Environment .............................................................................................3-18

3.8 POPULATION AND GROWTH CHARACTERISTICS .................. 3-193.8.1 National Park Visitors .........................................................................................3-193.8.2 Hualapai Reservation Residents and Visitors .......................................................3-203.8.3 Local Communities .............................................................................................3-20

3.9 RELATIONSHIP OF PROPOSED ACTION TO NATIONALPARK SERVICE GOALS FOR GCNP............................................... 3-22

CHAPTER FOUR - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.1 NOISE ..................................................................................................... 4-14.1.1 Noise Criteria........................................................................................................4-24.1.2 Noise Modeling.....................................................................................................4-5


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

iii

4.1.3 Aircraft and Operational Data for Modeling ..........................................................4-84.1.4 Model Output .....................................................................................................4-134.1.5 Noise Modeling Results ......................................................................................4-174.1.6 Conclusions ........................................................................................................4-22

4.2 HISTORIC, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURALRESOURCES........................................................................................ 4-22

4.3 DOT SECTION 4(f).............................................................................. 4-28

4.4 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS............................................................ 4-36

4.5 VISUAL IMPACTS.............................................................................. 4-37

4.6 SOCIAL/ SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS......................................... 4-37

4.7 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE........................................................... 4-38

4.8 NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITIES ........................................... 4-40

4.9 ENDANGERED SPECIES................................................................... 4-41

4.10 AIR QUALITY.................................................................................. 4-43

4.11 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .............................................................. 4-44

4.12 OTHER IMPACT CATEGORIES .................................................. 4-45

4.13 MITIGATION ................................................................................... 4-45

CHAPTER FIVE – LIST OF PREPARERS................................................... 5-1


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

iv

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – NOISE RESULTS.................................................................A-1APPENDIX B – GLOSSARY...........................................................................B-1APPENDIX C – NOISE BASICS.....................................................................C-1APPENDIX D – TECHNICAL MEMORANDA ............................................D-1APPENDIX E – OPERATIONS DATA ..........................................................E-1APPENDIX F – SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS ...........................................F-1APPENDIX G – COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ...................................... G-1APPENDIX H – CONSULTATION............................................................... H-1APPENDIX I – CONTACT LIST.....................................................................I-1


LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

v

2.1 Summary Comparison of Alternatives .........................................................................2-14

3.1 Species of Special Concern In and Adjacent to Grand Canyon ....................................3-173.2 Visitors to GCNP Rating Natural Quiet as Extremely Important .................................3-203.3 GCNP Visitor Activity Level ......................................................................................3-21

4.1 Categories of Aircraft Flying in SFAR...........................................................................4-94.2 Summary of SFAR Operational Activities as a Function of Type of Operation,

No Action Alternative.................................................................................................4-114.3 Summary of SFAR Operational Activities as a Function of Type of Operation,

Proposed Alternatives with Commercial Air Tour Limitations andContinued Growth ......................................................................................................4-11

4.4 Representative Point Locations in the Grand Canyon Vicinity North ofColorado River, West of GCNP Airport .....................................................................4-14

4.5 Representative Point Locations in the Grand Canyon Vicinity South ofColorado River, West of GCNP Airport .....................................................................4-15

4.6 Representative Point Locations in the Grand Canyon Vicinity North ofColorado River, East of GCNP Airport.......................................................................4-16

4.7 Representative Point Locations in the Grand Canyon Vicinity South ofColorado River, East of GCNP Airport.......................................................................4-16

4.8 Square Mile Area Covered by LAeq12h Contours (20-60) ConsideringOperations Limitation, 2003 .......................................................................................4-18

4.9 Square Mile Area Covered by LAeq12h Contours (20-60) ConsideringContinued Growth, 2003 ............................................................................................4-18

4.10 Percentage of Park Restored to Natural Quiet Considering CommercialAir Tour Limitations...................................................................................................4-18

4.11 Percentage of Park Restored to Natural Quiet Considering Continued Growth............4-194.12 Square Mile Area Where %TA12h is Greater Than 25% Considering

Commercial Air Tour Limitations, 2003......................................................................4-194.13 Square Mile Area Where %TA12h is Greater Than 25% Considering

Continued Growth, 2003 ............................................................................................4-194.14 Improvements in Percent Time Audible Considering Commercial

Air Tour Limitations...................................................................................................4-204.15 Improvements in Percent Time Audible Considering Continued Growth......................4-214.16 Improvements in Equivalent Sound Level Considering Commercial

Air Tour Limitations...................................................................................................4-214.17 Improvements in Equivalent Sound Level Considering Continued Growth ..................4-21


LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

vi

4.18 Grand Canyon Preferred Alternative LAeq12h For SelectedHualapai Reservation TCPs ........................................................................................4-30

4.19 Grand Canyon TCP Vision Field Calculations Preferred Alternative ............................4-324.20 Grand Canyon TCP Vision Field Calculations No Action Alternative ..........................4-334.21 Grand Canyon TCP Arm's Length Calculations Preferred Alternative..........................4-334.22 Grand Canyon TCP Arm's Length Calculations No Action Alternative........................4-34


LIST OF FIGURES

FollowingFigure

Page

vii

1-1 Study Area (same as 1996 EA) .....................................................................................1-71-2 Projected Increase in Aircraft Noise Levels ...................................................................1-7

2-1 Existing and Proposed SFAR Boundary and Route Alternatives..................................2-142-2 No Action Compared to Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) .....................................2-142-3 No Action Compared to Alternative 3.........................................................................2-142-4 No Action Compared to Alternative 4.........................................................................2-14

3-1 Ambient Noise Levels in Grand Canyon Noise Study Area..........................................3-23

4-1 NPS Noise Evaluation Zones Within the Grand Canyon Noise Study Area..................4-464-2 Representative Locations ............................................................................................4-464-3 1998 Leq12h No Action Contours..................................................................................4-464-4 2003 Leq12h No Action Contours..................................................................................4-464-5 2003 Alternatives with Commercial Air Tour Limitations Compared to the 2003 No Action Leq12h Contours .................................................................................4-464-6 2003 Alternatives with Continued Growth Compared to the 2003 No Action Leq12h Contours .................................................................................4-464-7 1998 Aircraft Audible More Than 25% of Time No Action Contours..........................4-464-8 2003 Aircraft Audible More Than 25% of Time No Action Contours..........................4-464-9 2003 Alternatives with Commercial Air Tour Limitations Compared to the 2003 No Action Aircraft Audible More Than 25% of Time Contours .........................4-464-10 2003 Alternatives with Continued Growth Compared to the

2003 No Action Aircraft Audible More Than 25% of Time Contours..........................4-46

1-1

Chapter OneBACKGROUND AND PROPOSEDACTION

This chapter provides a brief background ofthe Proposed Actions previously analyzedand environmental documentation that hasbeen accomplished by the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA) in cooperation withthe Department of the Interior (DOI)concerning rulemaking and commercial airtour route modifications proposed as nextsteps to substantially restore natural quiet tothe Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) asmandated by Pub. L. 100-91. A completeregulatory history of the need for restorationof natural quiet to GCNP is found in theDecember 1996 Environmental AssessmentSpecial Flight Rules in the Vicinity of GrandCanyon National Park (Final EA).Additionally, this chapter summarizes thepurpose and need for substantial restorationof natural quiet to the GCNP and the federalactions being proposed at this time. Thisenvironmental assessment supplements theEnvironmental Assessment prepared for theDecember 1996 final rule and the WrittenReevaluation prepared for the May 1997Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for FlightCorridors and the October 1997 Notice ofClarification.

Appendices A through I provide detailedtechnical background and results, as well as arecord of consultation with Native AmericanTribes and the contact list for this document.Endnotes are provided before theappendices. Figures are placed at the end ofeach chapter.

1.1 BACKGROUND

On December 31, 1996, the FAA published afinal rule amending Part 93 of the FederalAviation Regulations by adding a newsubpart to codify the provisions of SpecialFederal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 50-2, Special Flight Rules in the vicinity ofGCNP. This new subpart modified thedimension of the GCNP Special Flight RulesArea (SFRA); established new and modifiedflight free zones; established new andmodified existing flight corridors; establishedreporting requirements for commercial airtour operators in the SFRA; established fixedflight free time periods for commercialsightseeing operations in Zuni Point andDragon Corridors during certain timeperiods (curfews); and limited the number ofaircraft that could be used for commercialsightseeing operations in the GCNP SFRA.Each operator was limited to the highestnumber it used between July 31 andDecember 31, 1996 (61 FR 69302). Theprovisions contained in the final rule were tobecome effective on May 1, 1997.

Published concurrently with the final rule onDecember 31, 1996, were a Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on noiselimitations for aircraft operations in thevicinity of GCNP (Noise Limitations/QuietTechnology NPRM) and Notice ofAvailability of Proposed Commercial AirTour Routes. The Noise Limitations/QuietTechnology NPRM was a transition to quiet

1-2

air tour aircraft technology. It proposed todefine air tour aircraft in terms of “noiseefficiency” or noise per passenger seat; rankaircraft in noise efficiency categories; phaseout operations over time, beginning with thenoisiest; and provide for incentives for theuse of the most noise-efficient aircraft. Italso proposed to lift the temporary cap forthe most noise-efficient aircraft, and a“National Canyon Corridor” for such aircrafton an altered proposed route, Blue 1A. ADraft Environmental Assessment was issuedfor public comment until March 31, 1997,along with the Noise Limitations NPRM. Allthree of the above-referenced actionscomprised an overall strategy to assist theNational Park service (NPS) in achieving itsstatutory mandate, imposed by Public Law100-91, to provide for substantial restorationof natural quiet and enhance the visitorexperience in GCNP. The FAA estimatedthat, if the Noise Limitations rule wereadopted, 57.4 percent of the Park wouldexperience substantial restoration of naturalquiet by the year 2008.

During the comment period on the Notice ofAvailability of Proposed Commercial AirTour Routes, the FAA received valuableinformation from comments, as well assuggestions for alterations and refinementsof the route structure, from officials of theGCNP and NPS that could potentiallyproduce noise reduction benefits and alsoaddress other related impacts. Both the FAAand the DOI concluded that a number of thesuggested changes could produce asignificantly better rule for GCNP users, theaviation operators, and interested NativeAmerican tribes. The FAA determined thatpermitting the complete final rule to becomeeffective on May 1, 1997, would be contraryto the public interest.

On February 21, 1997, the FAA publishedanother final rule that delayed theimplementation of certain sections of thefinal rule. Specifically, the effective date ofthe Flight Free Zones (FFZ), flight corridors,and Special Flight Rules Area was delayeduntil January 31, 1998. FAA also reinstatedand extended the expiration date of certainportions of SFAR 50-2 (62 FR 8861;February 26, 1997). The curfew onoperations in Dragon and Zuni Corridors onthe east end of the GCNP, the cap on thenumber of aircraft, and the reportingrequirements were not affected. Theseactions were implemented on May 1, 1997.

May 1997 Corridors NPRM andRevised Air Tour Routes

On May 12, 1997 (62 FR 38233; May 15,1997), the FAA issued a Notice proposingto modify two FFZs within GCNP byestablishing two corridors through theFFZ. The FAA also issued a revisedNotice of Availability of ProposedCommercial Air Tour Routes. The firstcorridor, through the Bright Angel flightfree zone, would be used for the mostnoise-efficient aircraft only. The secondcorridor, through the Toroweap/Shinumoflight free zone over the National Canyonarea of the GCNP, would be for the mostnoise-efficient aircraft for westboundtraffic after December 31, 2001. Thissecond corridor was developed to addressthe concerns of the Havasupai Triberegarding potential impacts on culturalsites. The revised National Canyoncorridor was designed to continue toprovide a viable air tour route through thecenter of the Canyon (Blue 1A), yet in alocation and manner that would minimizepotential impacts on Supai Village andHavasupai cultural sites.

1-3

To evaluate the potential impacts of theNPRM, FAA prepared a WrittenReevaluation of the December 1996 FinalEA. Based upon this Reevaluation, theconclusions of the Finding of No SignificantImpact (FONSI) were found to besubstantially valid, and no EAsupplementation was required.

On July 10, 1998 (63 FR 38233; July 15,1998), the FAA, in consultation with NPS,withdrew this NPRM because the agenciesdetermined not to proceed with acommercial air tour route in the vicinity ofNational Canyon and to consider otheralternatives. This was due, in part, toconcerns about substantial restoration ofnatural quiet. In addition, the FAAamended the Noise Limitations NPRM towithdraw the portions in which the FAAhad first proposed a National CanyonCorridor (63 FR 38232; July 10, 1998).

October 1997 Notice of Clarification

Based on initial surveys of air touroperators as well as operations specifica-tions, the FAA determined that the cap onaircraft in the December 1996 final rulewould permit approximately 136 aircraft tooperate within the area covered by flightrestrictions.

After the final rule was published, however,the FAA obtained additional data showingthat it had underestimated the number ofeligible air tour aircraft. Therefore, duringMay 1997, the FAA, conducted a survey ofair tour operators and visited sites to identifyin detail the number and type of aircraftengaged in GCNP air tours in 1996.

To confirm the May 1997 survey aircraftcount, reconcile the May survey results withthe 1995 survey, and obtain more

comprehensive data about numbers of airtours conducted in 1995, the FAA conductedfollow-up site visits with each GCNP air touroperator in July 1997.

The FAA then re-evaluated the economicanalysis and, for a second time, re-evaluated the environmental analysiscompleted for the final rule and publishedits results in a notice of clarification andrequest for comments (62 Fed. Reg. 58,898; October 31, 1997). Incorporating thenewly obtained information, the FAAestimated that in 1995, the same 31 GCNPair tour operators flew nearly 103,000 airtours, utilizing at least 260 aircraft andcarrying over 821,000 passengers. Bycomparison, the estimates originallyreported in the regulatory evaluation of thefinal rule were 70,000 air tours, 136aircraft, and approximately 655,600passengers. The new data increased theestimated costs of the final rule from $42to 47 million and reduced the estimatedbenefits from $172 to 144 million over theperiod 1997-2008.

The new data led the FAA to reconsider itsassumptions about the effectiveness of thecap on aircraft to limit growth by most airtour operators to meet demand. The newdata did not otherwise affect the validity ofthe noise and air quality analyses in theDecember 1996 Final EA. The analysesdepended on the number of flights, notaircraft. The 1997 surveys also revealedthe potential for five daily operations onthe Black 4 route and six daily operationson the Black 5 route in the Marble Canyonarea. The October 1997 WrittenReevaluation of environmental impactsindicated that, even after considering therevised estimate of the number of aircraftoperating in the Park, the final rule wouldsubstantially restore natural quiet in 41.7

1-4

percent of the Park. With unconstrainedgrowth, the area of the Park to whichnatural quiet has been substantiallyrestored would decrease to 34.2 percent in2008. The FAA determined that, althoughthe new information changed theenvironmental analysis, the changes didnot warrant modification of the final rule.Although the eligibility of a greaternumber of aircraft, 260 aircraft rather than136, to operate would cause the final ruleto be less effective in achieving substantialrestoration of natural quiet over time, thefinal rule still represented progress towardthat end. The FAA concluded that theNoise Limitations rulemaking andfinalization of the air tour routes, whencompleted, would result in attainment ofthe statutory goal (62 Fr 58900-58905).However, FAA and NPS agreed to delaythe final route selection so that furtherreview and discussions could beundertaken on the route through theproposed National Canyon Corridor.

Public Meeting in Flagstaff, AZ

On April 28, 1998, the FAA met with apanel comprised of representatives ofaffected parties to attempt to recommendand further define the routes andcorresponding airspace before FAAproceeded with rulemaking. The FAApresented a tentative route through theSanup FFZ for consideration (63 FR18964; April 16, 1998). The affectedparties, however, were unwilling toconsider the routes as distinct from otheractions, particularly prior to a ruling by thecourt in Grand Canyon Air Tour Coalitionv. FAA.

Grand Canyon Air Tour Coalition v.FAA

In early 1997, seven environmental groupsled by the Grand Canyon Trust, air touroperators, local government entities, andthe Hualapai Tribe filed a lawsuitchallenging the December 1996 final rulein the U.S. Circuit Court for the District ofColumbia. The case was argued onNovember 6, 1997. During oral argument,the Court suggested that air tour operatorsmight be willing to comply in good faithwith a limitation on the number of air touroperations. In a decision dated September4, 1998, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appealsfor the District of Columbia deferred tothe judgment and technical expertise of theFAA in certain areas and determined thatthe challenges in other areas were not ripein light of the phased nature of FAA’sproposed solution to the problem ofaircraft noise (Grand Canyon Air TourAssociation v. FAA, 154 F.3d 455 (DCCir. 1998)).

The Court held that the agencies’definition of the terms natural quiet andsubstantial restoration of natural quietsatisfied the National Park Overflights Act.The Court specifically relied upon FAA’sassurances in rejecting the argument of theGrand Canyon Trust that issuing a rulethat does not contemplate achievement ofCongress’ goal for ten years wasinherently unreasonable. The Courtindicated that it would take the FederalGovernment at its word that it stillanticipates meeting the goal of substantialrestoration by 2008 by using the NoiseLimitations rule and the route structure tomake up the gap in 2008 that results fromthe new data on number of aircraft. FAAalso advised the Court that it wouldconsider a cap on overflights.

1-5

Effective Date of Certain Portions of theFinal Rule Delayed Until January 31,2000

On December 17, 1997, pendingfinalization of new routes, FAA tookaction to delay implementation of theFFZs, flight corridors, and SFRA and toextend portions of SFAR 50-2 untilJanuary 31, 1999 (62 FR 66248). OnDecember 7, 1998, the FAA again tookaction to delay implementation of theabove-mentioned sections and to extendcertain portions of SFAR 50-2 untilJanuary 31, 2000 (63 FR 67544).

Effective Date of Certain Portions of theFinal Rule Delayed Until January 31,2001

On January 28, 2000, FAA again took actionto delay implementation of the abovementioned sections and to extend certainportions of SFAR 50-2 until January 31,2001 (65 FR 5396, dated February 3, 2000).

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose and need of this action is toassist NPS in achieving the statutorymandate imposed by Pub. L. 100-91 toprovide for the substantial restoration ofnatural quiet and to enhance the visitorexperience in GCNP. The FAA recognizesthe need to accommodate air tours to theextent that such operations are consistentwith the essential values of the GCNP. Thestudy area relating to this objective is shownin Figure 1-1.

“[S]ubstantial restoration of natural quiet”has been defined by the NPS to mean “that50 percent or more of the park achieve

‘natural quiet’ (i.e., no aircraft audible) for75 to 100 percent of the day.”1 Naturalquiet refers to the natural ambient soundconditions found in parks, referring to theabsence of mechanical noise but acceptingthe non-mechanical “self-noise” of visitors(i.e., talking, walking, etc.). Using thisdefinition, the NPS concluded thatsubstantial restoration of natural quiet couldnot be achieved with provisions of the May1988 SFAR 50-2. The revisions to SFAR50-2 thus far have not achieved substantialrestoration of natural quiet to GCNP.Although improvements have been made,they have been eroded by the growth of theair tour industry over time. Figure 1-2illustrates the projected increase in aircraftnoise levels through the year 2008 withoutadditional revisions to SFAR 50-2, asamended in December 1996.

1.3 CONSULTATION ANDSCOPING

On February 3, 1999, the FAA initiatedscoping for this Supplemental EA (FR 6131,February 8, 1999). The comment periodended March 5, 1999. The FAA received 20comments during the comment period, whichare summarized in Appendix G. The majorcomments included concern regarding theviability of air tour routes through the centerof the Canyon, proposed commercial air tourlimitations, the air tour routes proposed,ability to achieve substantial restoration ofnatural quiet, and the implementation ofquiet technology aircraft. The HavasupaiTribe commented that all commercial fixedwing tour flights should be removed from theHavasupai Reservation. The comments wereconsidered in the development of thisSupplemental EA.

1-6

The NPS is a cooperating agency inpreparing this Supplemental EA. In addition,the FAA invited Native American Tribeswith adjacent reservations and ancestral tiesto the Grand Canyon to participate ascooperating agencies. The Hualapai Tribeexpressed an interest and has providedcomments. A Cooperating AgencyAgreement with the Hualapai Tribe wassigned on July 26, 1999.

In their comments the Hualapai Tribe definedprotection of the resources of the GrandCanyon from adverse impacts of aircraftoverflights for the purpose of Pub. L. 100-91as the absence of significant impact on orimpairment of the environment and uses ofthe Grand Canyon extending outside of theGCNP from aircraft overflights. TheHualapai Tribe relies on Section 3(b)(1) ofPub.L 100-91 that states, “the Secretary shallsubmit to the Administratorrecommendations regarding actionsnecessary for the protection of resources inthe Grand Canyon from adverse impactsassociated with overflights. Therecommendations shall provide forsubstantial restoration of the natural quietand experience of the park and protection ofpublic health and safety from adverse effectsassociated with aircraft overflight.”

As the proposed and alternative commercialair tour routes overfly Tribal lands adjacentto and outside the GCNP, the study area forthis Supplemental EA includes the entireSFAR 50-2. The study area is shown inFigure 1-2.

The mandate of the Overflights Act does notextend to areas of the Grand Canyon locatedoutside the boundaries of the GCNP.Although the scope of the mandate is limitedto the GCNP, the FAA recognizes itsresponsibility under applicable environmental

laws to consider impacts on potentiallyaffected resources outside the GCNP.

1.4 PROPOSED ACTION

The Proposed Action is the same asdescribed in the 1996 Final EA and amendedin the May 1997 Reevaluation and theOctober 1997 Notice of Clarification.However, it has been further refined toconsider concerns expressed by interestedparties. The Final EA Proposed Actionmodified the dimension of the GCNP SFRA,established new and modified existing flightfree zones, established new and modifiedexisting flight corridors, establishedreporting requirements for commercial airtour companies operating in the SFRA,established a curfew, and limited the numberof aircraft that can be used in commercial airtour operations in the GCNP SFRA. TheMay 1997 Reevaluation analyzed thedevelopment of two corridors throughestablished FFZs (National Canyon andBright Angel Corridors) and the commercialair tour routes as described in the 1996Notice of Availability of ProposedCommercial Air Tour Routes and modifiedin May 1997. The Notice of Clarificationevaluated further minor modifications in thecommercial air tour routes considered inMay 1997, and differences between thenumbers of operations modeled in the FinalEA and May 1997 Reevaluation and theoperations surveyed at the GCNP in July1997. This Supplemental EA will considerthe December 1996 final rule, and thefollowing proposed additional actions:February 2000 proposed Notice ofAvailability of Commercial Air Tour Routes;the February 2000 proposed final rule,Modification of the Dimensions of theGCNP SFRA Airspace and FFZs; and the

1-7

proposed final rule to limit commercial airtour operations. These actions provide for:

• Modification of the eastern portion of theSFRA and the Desert View FFZ toaddress concerns raised by NativeAmericans. The modifications proposedin the NPRM (Notice 99-11) have beenrevised in the proposed final rule basedon comments received. The DesertView’s eastern boundary has been movedwestward to the GCNP boundary and thesoutheastern portion of the SFRA hasbeen modified to allow a 3.5-mileseparation from the Sunny MilitaryOperating Area.

• Modification of the Sanup FFZ toprovide for a planned revision to acommercial air tour route over thenorthwestern section of the GCNP.

• Provision of an additional commercial airtour route (Blue Direct North) over thenorthern section of the Sanup Plateau forthose aircraft transiting between LasVegas, Nevada, and Tusayan, Arizona.This route is identical to the existingBlue Direct route. The altitudesavailable for use range from 7,500 feetmean sea level (MSL) to 10,500 feetMSL (see Notice of Route Availability).

• Relocation of Blue Direct Southapproximately one mile to the north.The number of altitudes available for useon the route has been modified from thatshown in the Draft SEA. The altitudesavailable have been reduced from two toone eastbound at 9,500 feet MSL. All ofthe traffic that would have utilized thealtitude of 8,500 feet MSL would eithermove to the new Blue Direct North orremain outside of SFRA airspace.

• Limitation on the number of commercialair tour operations in the SFRA. Thelimitations in the proposed final rule aremodified from those specified in theNPRM (Notice 99-12) based oncomments received on the NPRM.Commercial air tour operators complyingwith specific conditions will be exceptedfrom the allocation process. Theconditions relate to support of theHualapai Tribe and require the operatorto have executed a written contract withthe Tribe. The exception was developedpursuant to the federal government’strust responsibility to the Hualapai Tribe.The limitation on operations would havesignificantly, adversely impacted theHualapai Tribe’s economic developmentefforts at Grand Canyon West.

• Revision of the reporting requirements torequire operators to file flight plans forcommercial SFRA operations.

The proposed action in this SupplementalEA is similar to the Proposed Actionanalyzed in the December 1996 Final EA,as re-evaluated in May 1997 and October1997. However, proposed changes includethe following areas: the air tour routeseastward from Las Vegas to Tusayan andaround the Desert View FFZ, expansion ofthe Desert View FFZ, modification of theSFRA boundary on the east, and theelimination of incentive corridors throughNational Canyon.

1-8

2

2-1

Chapter TwoALTERNATIVES

Since 1995, the FAA and NPS, inconsultation with Native American tribesliving in or associated with the GrandCanyon and other interested parties, havebeen working to develop and refinealternatives that meet the statutory mandateto substantially restore natural quiet to theGCNP. This chapter summarizes previouslystudied alternatives as identified in theDecember 1996 final rule and Final EA, theMay 1997 Written Reevaluation and theOctober 1997 Notice of Clarification, andprovides a history of route alternativesconsidered since May 1997. Lastly, thischapter sets forth a description of thealternatives recommended for considerationwithin this document.

This Supplemental EA evaluates theenvironmental effects of maintaining thecurrent airspace structure with the existingcommercial air tour routes (No Actionalternative) and three potential alternatives.These alternatives include modification tothe Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA)boundary, modification to flight corridorsand flight-free zones (FFZ), and threediffering commercial air tour routealternatives. The alternatives are consideredwith or without implementing a limitation onthe number of commercial air tours operatingin the study area. A detailed description ofthe alternatives considered in this documentis contained in Section 2.3. FAA Order1050.1D, Policies and Procedures forConsidering Environmental Impacts,2

provides guidance in assessing alternativesper the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) and Council on EnvironmentalQuality (CEQ) regulations. Based on thisSupplemental EA, the FAA will determinewhether a finding of no significant impactmay be issued or that an environmentalimpact statement is required.

2.1 PREVIOUSLYCONSIDEREDALTERNATIVES

This section provides descriptions of thealternatives considered within threeprogressive environmental documents thatanalyzed the potential environmental impactsassociated with modifying SFAR 50-2 asestablished in 1988 (53 FR 20264, June 2,1988). All previously proposed alternativeswere compared to the existing airspaceregulations over the Grand Canyon, asdescribed in SFAR 50-2.

Final Rule and Final EA December 1996

The Proposed Action alternative amendedPart 93 of the Federal Aviation Regulationsby adding a new Subpart U that codified andamended the provisions of SFAR 50-2 asfollows:

• Modified the dimensions of the GrandCanyon National Park SFRA and raisedthe altitude of this controlled airspace to17,999 feet MSL.

• Established new and modified existingFFZs by expanding the Bright Angel and

2-2

Desert View FFZs, merging the Shinumoand Toroweap/Thunder River FFZs intoone FFZ, and creating a new Sanup FFZ.

• Established new and modified existingflight corridors, by modifying the ZuniPoint and Dragon Corridors, andeliminating the Fossil Canyon Corridor.

• Established fixed flight-free periods(curfews) for commercial sightseeingoperations departing from Grand CanyonAirport as follows:

1. Summer season (May 1-September30) 6 p.m. to 8 a.m. daily.

2. Winter season (October 1-April 30) 5p.m. to 9 a.m. daily.

• Established minimum sector altitudes asfollows:

1. Commercial sightseeing flights.

(a) North Canyon Sector. LeesFerry to North Canyon: 5,000feet MSL.

(b) Marble Canyon Sector. NorthCanyon to Boundary Ridge:6,000 feet MSL.

(c) Supai Sector. Boundary Ridge toSupai Point: 7,500 feet MSL.

(d) Diamond Creek Sector. SupaiPoint to Diamond Creek: 6,500feet MSL.

(e) Pearce Ferry Sector. DiamondCreek to the Grand Wash Cliffs:5,000 feet MSL.

2. Transient and general aviationoperations.

(a) North Canyon Sector. LeesFerry to North Canyon: 8,000feet MSL.

(b) Marble Canyon Sector. NorthCanyon to Boundary Ridge:8,000 feet MSL.

(c) Supai Sector. Boundary Ridge toSupai Point: 10,000 feet MSL.

(d) Diamond Creek Sector. SupaiPoint to Diamond Creek: 9,000feet MSL.

(e) Pearce Ferry Sector. DiamondCreek to the Grand Wash Cliffs:8,000 feet MSL.

• Established minimum corridor altitudesas follows:

1. Commercial sightseeing flights.

(a) Zuni Point Corridor. 7,500 feetMSL.

(b) Dragon Corridor. 7,500 feetMSL.

2. Transient and general aviationoperations.

(a) Zuni Point Corridor. 10,500 feetMSL.

(b) Dragon Corridor. 10,500 feetMSL.

(c) Tuckup Corridor. 10,500 feetMSL.

2-3

• Capped aircraft used for sightseeingoperations to those aircraft that wereeligible to operate in the SFRA from July31, 1996, through December 31, 1996.

On February 21, 1997, the FAA issued afinal rule that delayed the implementation ofcertain sections of the December 31, 1996,final rule (62 FR 8862; February 26, 1997).Specifically, this action delayed the effectivedate, until January 31, 1998, of thosesections for the rule that address the SFRA,FFZs, and flight corridors, respectively (§§93.301, 93.305, and 93.307). In addition,certain portions of SFAR No. 50-2 werereinstated and the expiration date extended.With the goal to produce the bestcommercial air tour routes possible,implementation was delayed to allow theFAA and the DOI to consider comments andsuggestions to improve the proposed routestructure. The curfew, aircraft cap, andreporting requirements of the final rule wentinto effect on May 1, 1997.

May 1997 Written Reevaluation

Comments received on the Notice ofAvailability of Proposed Commercial AirTour Routes (December 1996) and theNPRM on Noise Limitations for AircraftOperations in the Vicinity of the GrandCanyon National Park prompted the FAA toamend two of the FFZs within the GCNP.The FAA proposed the establishment of twocorridors and the modification of someroutes (also referred to as the 1997 ProposedAction commercial air tour routes). Theincentive corridors in the Noise LimitationsNPRM were the subject of the May 1997Written Reevaluation of the Final EA.

Descriptions of the proposed corridor andcommercial air tour routes that modify ordiffer from the Final EA Proposed Action

alternative which were analyzed in theWritten Reevaluation follow:

Bright Angel FFZ. The first corridor,through the Bright Angel FFZ, would be anincentive corridor to be used only by themost noise-efficient aircraft. For purposes ofthe May 1997 Written Reevaluation, thenoise efficient aircraft were defined in theDecember 1996 NPRM. The most noise-efficient aircraft are identified as Category C.This proposed corridor would pass throughthe Bright Angel FFZ along the northernboundary of the current Bright Angel FFZ,as defined in SFAR 50-2. The proposedBright Angel Corridor would have athreefold benefit. First, fewer aircraft wouldbe flying over the northern rim of the Canyonalong Saddle Mountain, where the NPS haspointed out some noise sensitivity. Second,noise from air tour aircraft would bedispersed between the northern boundary ofthe new Bright Angel FFZ and the proposedcorridor, thereby reducing the level ofconcentrated aircraft noise along any oneroute. Third, opening this corridor to onlythe most noise-efficient aircraft wouldprovide a valuable and tangible incentive forair tour operators to convert to quieteraircraft well before they would be requiredto do so. The GCNP could therebyexperience the benefit of an earlier reductionin the level of aircraft noise.

Toroweap/Shinumo FFZ. The secondcorridor, through the Toroweap/ShinumoFFZ and referred to as the National CanyonCorridor, would go through the NationalCanyon area and would create a viablecommercial air tour route through the centralsection of the Park while addressingconcerns of the Native Americans. Thiscorridor was revised from that proposed inthe December 1996 NPRM for NoiseLimitations for Aircraft Operations in the

2-4

Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park.The proposed corridor would not affect theexisting Tuckup Corridor currently used bygeneral aviation. All aircraft would bepermitted to use the National CanyonCorridor until December 31, 2001, afterwhich westbound traffic would only bepermitted to traverse the corridor inCategory C aircraft.

The following summarizes the changesconsidered to the National Canyon Corridorbefore the proposal was withdrawn.

• First, the corridor would feed into analtered proposed route that is shorterthan that previously proposed in theNotice of Availability of Proposed AirTour Routes for GCNP in December1996. By eliminating the portion of theroute north of Supai Village, the corridorwould eliminate air tour flights aroundSupai Village, home of the HavasupaiTribe, and minimize and/or avoidincreased overflights of the vast majorityof their Traditional Cultural Properties(TCPs). It would also minimizesocioeconomic impacts to their economy,which is based heavily on tourism, which,in turn, is based on the isolated andnatural character of the northern part ofthe reservation.

• Second, the redefined corridor wouldtraverse a much smaller segment of theToroweap/Shinumo FFZ than thecorridor proposed in the December 1996Noise Limitations NPRM. The corridorproposed in the May 1997 NPRM wouldbe open to all aircraft until December 31,2001, rather than only the most noise-efficient aircraft as in the previousproposal. The FAA believed thatpermitting only the most noise-efficientaircraft to be used in westbound traffic of

the National Canyon Corridor afterDecember 31, 2001, would furtherreduce noise in the corridor.

• Third, this proposal would permit theestablishment of a viable commercial airtour route in the central region of theGCNP, which would be available to allaircraft. The operators informed theFAA that the Blue One route, asdepicted on the chart referenced in theDecember 31, 1996, Notice of RouteAvailability, would not be a viable airtour, and that the proposed Blue OneAlpha route was an example of a viablecommercial air tour route. This proposalwould avoid the economic harm thatmight accrue to air tour operators shouldthe operations previously on Blue Onenot shift to other commercial air tourroutes.

• In addition, the proposed commercial airtour route over the central region of theGCNP, open to all aircraft, wouldpromote air safety. Subsequent to theDecember 1996 Notice of RouteAvailability, air tour operators advisedthat if there were not a viable commercialair tour route in the central region of theGCNP, they would divert theiroperations to the routes south of theSanup FFZ. FAA believed this wouldresult in compression of traffic andpotentially unsafe operating conditions.Opening the corridor would enhance airtraffic safety by removing a factor thatcould lead to compression of traffic inthe routes south of the Sanup FFZ.

The corridor was considered in response tocomments received on the Grand Canyonrulemaking action and the December 1996Notice of Route Availability, a preliminaryFAA evaluation assessing the environmental

2-5

merit of such routes pursuant to thesecomments, and ongoing discussion withNative American tribal government units andtheir representatives. The 1997 ProposedAction commercial air tour routes weresubsequently revised from the routesmodeled in the Final EA to accommodate theproposed new corridors and NativeAmerican concerns about impacts on culturalresources.

October 1997 Notice of Clarification

The Notice of Clarification Final EAProposed Action evaluated further minormodifications in the commercial air tourroutes considered after the May 1997Written Reevaluation with operational levelssurveyed at the GCNP in July 1997. TheNotice of Clarification applied a new annualoperational growth and redefined operationallevels on several of the commercial air tourroutes. Several sensitivity analyses wheremodeled for changes to operations onindividual tracks and an earlier turn wasassumed for traffic on two of the returntracks to Las Vegas. Additionally, two routechange alternatives were analyzed: (1) aconservative assumption regarding the turnaround routes in the Sanup area (turn aroundat Diamond Creek) and (2) an adjustment tothe National Canyon Corridor route in anattempt to further mitigate Native Americanconcerns.

On December 17, 1997, the FAA took actionto further delay the implementation of theSFRA, FFZs and flight corridor changesproposed in the December final rule untilJanuary 31, 2000 (62 FR 66248). Again, itshould be noted that these actions did notaffect or delay the implementation of thecurfew, aircraft cap, or reportingrequirements of the rule, which wereeffective May 1, 1997.

FAA subsequently delayed implementationof the SFRA, FFZs, and flight corridorchanges until January 31, 2001 (65 FR 5396,February 3, 2000).

2.2 COMMERCIAL AIR TOURROUTE ALTERNATIVESCONSIDERED

Since May 1997, the FAA and the NPS haveconsidered a number of commercial air tourroute proposals through the western portionsof the study area. These route proposalswould provide air tour operators with a safeair tour route while moving towards thelegislatively-mandated goal of substantialrestoration of natural quiet and preservingcultural resources. Figure 2-1 illustrates thecommercial air tour routes currently flown atthe Grand Canyon for commercial SFRAoperations. This figure shows the routenames and numbers identified within thissection.

The commercial air tour route proposalsdescribed in this section were eitherdeveloped internally by FAA or the NPS orsuggested by interested parties. Theproposals that were considered by the FAAsince May 1997 include the following.

Proposal 1, (Blue-2 and Green-4). Routeswould remain the same as they are todayuntil reaching Separation Canyon. FromSeparation Canyon to Diamond Creek theywould cross the Colorado River and overflythe Hualapai Reservation.

This route was not retained for detailedstudy because of Hualapai Tribe concernsthat it would increase overflights of HualapaiTCPs and NPS concerns about Kelly Point,

2-6

the primary destination point in the easternpart of the Lake Mead Recreational Area.

Proposal 2, (Blue-2 and Green-4). Routeswould remain the same as they are todayexcept the turn around for Blue-2 would bemoved to a location between Merwhitica andHorse Flat Canyons. Blue-2 would thencontinue north of the Colorado River. Theroute east of Surprise Canyon would bedeleted.

This concept was not retained for detailedstudy based on operational safety concerns.The turn into the high terrain and the lack ofeasily identifiable landmarks to enable pilotsto remain north of the Colorado River raisedsafety concerns related to the turn.

Proposal 3, (New Blue-1, Blue-2 and Green-4). The existing Blue-1 route throughNational Canyon would be eliminated. NewBlue-1 would enter at Pearce Canyon andcontinue along the north side of theColorado River to Diamond Creek. It wouldthen cross the river and proceed northeast-bound to intersect the current route labeledBlue-2B. New Blue-1 would parallel Blue-2B until approximately two nautical miles(NM) south of Parashant Wash, where itwould proceed directly to Grand CanyonAirport. Blue-2 and Green-4 would followthe routes as they are currently flown, exceptthey would turn around at Spencer Canyon.

These route proposals were presented at theFlagstaff meeting in February 1998. Theseroutes were not retained for detailed studybecause of safety concerns raised by ClarkCounty related to minimal lateral separationof the proposed Blue-1 and existing Blue-2at the same altitude. A variation of thisproposal is part of Alternative 3.

Proposal 4, (Blue-2 and Green-4). Thecurrent routes would be moved to overflythe Sanup Plateau side of the Colorado Riverand would turn around at Surprise Canyon.

The Hualapai Tribe favored this routebecause it had the least impact on GrandCanyon West and the TCPs on the south sideof the Colorado River. However, theseroutes were not retained for detailed studybecause of safety concerns related to terrainclearance similar to the preceding proposal.The altitude of the Plateau would not allowflights at 5,500 feet mean sea level (MSL) sothey would have to operate at 7,500 feetMSL. This would cause compression withaircraft already operating at that altitude andhigher altitudes.

Proposal 5, (New Blue-1 and Blue-2). NewBlue-1 and Blue-2 would be consolidated atPearce Canyon and proceed north of theColorado River to Burnt Canyon. NewBlue-1 would proceed from Burnt Canyonacross the Sanup Plateau to Surprise Canyonand continue on to intercept a combinationof the existing Blue-2A and -2B routes.

At Burnt Canyon, Blue-2 would againbecome a separate route and make a rightturn crossing the Colorado River. The turnwould be completed before Horse FlatCanyon, then continue northwest-bound untilQuartermaster Canyon. Blue-2 would thencross back to the north side of the river untilit passes Bat Cave, then proceed west out ofthe SFRA.

New Blue-1 was not retained for detailedstudy because of environmental concerns.The ethnographic study prepared by theHualapai Tribe indicates that there are TCPsin the canyons near Diamond Creek, whichthe New Blue-1 would adversely impact.New Blue-1 was also dismissed in light of

2-7

NPS’ concern that the additional aircraftnoise would interfere with the goal ofsubstantial restoration of natural quiet in theGCNP and Kelly Point, a primary destinationpoint in the eastern part of Lake MeadNational Recreational Area. Blue-2 was notretained for detailed study because of thedescending 180-degree right turn, whichlimits the pilot’s field of vision. The turn inBlue-2 was rejected for safety concerns.

Proposal 6, (No Fixed Wing Traffic onBlue-2). Blue-2 would be eliminated and atransit route would be established to allowboth fixed wing and helicopter operationsto land at Grand Canyon West on theHualapai Reservation. The Hualapai Tribeexpressed concern that fixed wing trafficwill significantly increase over time andthat noise associated with turns in the areainhabited by Desert bighorn sheep willexacerbate the effects of noise from GrandCanyon West and drive away Desertbighorn sheep that graze in the area.Although aircraft may startle or momentarilyalter the behavior of individual bighornsheep, there is no evidence that animalpopulations or their habitats in the GrandCanyon area have been negatively impactedby air tour operations. Therefore, FAA didnot pursue this alternative. This conceptwould severely impact the viability ofoperations by air tour operations from theLas Vegas vicinity. Elimination of the tourindustry in the western Grand Canyon wasconsidered too drastic a measure at this time,especially since the noise gains would beminimal due to the large number of flights inthe same vicinity in support of the HualapaiTribe. This alternative is not consistentwith the purpose and intent of the NationalPark Overflights Act, which contemplatesthat air tour operations will be adjusted asnecessary to achieve the goal of substantialrestoration.

Proposal 7, (Blue-2 and Green-4). Blue-2would enter at Pearce Canyon and continuenorth of the River to Surprise Canyon. AtSurprise Canyon, Blue-2 would make a rightturn and cross the Colorado River. The turnwould be completed before Blue-2 reachesHorse Flat Canyon, then Blue-2 wouldcontinue northwestbound until reachingQuartermaster Canyon. Blue-2 would thencross back to the north side of the river andcontinue northwestbound until passing BatCave, where it would turn westbound out ofthe SFRA. This is the same Blue-2 routeconfiguration that was considered in July1998, except the altitude in this proposal forBlue-2 would enter at 7,500 feet MSL andexit at 6,500 feet MSL. Green-4 wouldenter and exit at 6,000 feet MSL and wouldremain on the north side of the ColoradoRiver.

This version of Blue-2 was not retained fordetailed study because the volumes of flightsare likely to result in compression. There arealso safety issues during poor weatherbecause only one altitude would be availablefor flights in each direction. The Green-4portion of this proposal was dismissedbecause of safety concerns related to boththe inbound and outbound legs of the route.The proposal had both legs on the same sideof the Colorado River at the same altitude.

Proposal 8, (New Blue-2 and Green-4). Theconfiguration of the current Green-4 routewould remain the same, but it would becomea “stacked” route. The route would beassigned two distinct altitudes separatedvertically by 1,000 feet for helicopteroperations. Green-4A would enter theSFRA at 5,000 feet MSL and exit at GrandCanyon West Airport, which serves touristslanding on the Hualapai Reservation. Green-4B would enter at 6,000 feet MSL and

2-8

follow the current route for Green-4 on thesouth side of the Colorado River andcomplete a 180-degree turn prior to HorseFlat Canyon. It would then proceednorthwesterly on the north side of the riverto exit the SFRA.

New Blue-2 would enter at the same locationas the current Blue-2 then turn southwesterlyat the Burnt Canyon marker. The routewould then turn and cross the ColoradoRiver at Quartermaster Canyon. The turnwould be completed prior to Horse FlatCanyon and proceed northwest on the northside of the river to exit via the same route asthe current Blue-2. This route was proposedwith the turn resembling either a teardrop orhorseshoe pattern.

The Green-4A and -4B portions of thisproposal were dismissed because ofcomplexity and safety concerns. Theproposal negated the use of the 5,500 footMSL altitude for fixed-wing commercial airtour operations. Approximately 86 percentof the helicopters would use Green-4A sincethey land on the Hualapai Reservation.Creating a second helicopter altitude for 14percent of the operations would displace thecurrent fixed-wing aircraft, creating acompression and safety concern.

Proposal 9, (Blue-2, Green-4, and New BlueDirect South). Blue-2 would be the sameroute as that considered in Proposal 7 withthe altitudes of 7,500/5,500 feet MSLeastbound and 8,500/6,500 feet MSLwestbound. Green-4 would be changed tomove the altitude back to 5,000 feet MSLutilizing both sides of the river. It would berevised to enter the SFRA on the south sideof the Colorado River, proceedsoutheastbound to Horse Flat Canyon, makea left turn to cross the River and proceed toPearce Ferry on the north side of the river.

The current Blue Direct South route entrypoint would be moved from abeam GrandCanyon West Airport to coincide with theexisting Blue-2 west-end entry point. TheNew Blue Direct South route would proceedfrom the entry point directly to ageographical area referred to as “the square”west of the Grand Canyon Airport (GCN).The square is used for air traffic controlpurposes at GCN.

This tentative air tour route proposal waspresented to the Hualapai Tribe at themeeting in Mesa, Arizona, on March 9, 1999and was modeled using the FAA’s airfieldand airspace simulation model, SIMMOD.The SIMMOD identified potential safetyconcerns where the Blue Direct South trafficat 8,500 feet MSL merged with the existingBlue-2 traffic at the same altitude. Thistentative route structure was then revised asfollows and included as part of the ProposedAction in this Supplemental EA.

While there are two altitudes available onBlue Direct South, only one altitude wouldbe available for use on New Blue DirectSouth eastbound (9,500 feet MSL). All ofthe traffic that would have utilized thealtitude of 8,500 feet MSL would eithermove to the New Blue Direct North route orremain outside of SFRA airspace. Raisingthe altitude to 9,500 feet MSL would helpreduce potential impacts on the area ofconcern identified by the Hualapai Tribe inits ethnographic study as Hualapai TCPNumber 10 (to protect confidential andsensitive cultural information about this TCPand its specific location, it is referred to inthis Final SEA by its number on a list ofTCPs identified by the Hualapai Tribe).There would be no commercial SFRAoperations over flying the TCP below 9,500feet MSL.

2-9

Proposal 10, (Blue 1, Blue Direct, BlueDirect South). This proposal wouldeliminate existing Blue-1, Blue Direct, andBlue Direct South. Commercial air tourswould instead be routed west of Blue-2 andGreen-4 and south, around the entireHualapai Reservation. The tours would thenturn at the Peach Springs Very HighFrequency Omni-directional Radio Range(VOR) on Victor Airway 208-210 on courseto Tusayan. The boundaries of the SFRAwould also be expanded to include the newroute. This route was not retained fordetailed study because of safety andeconomic concerns. Commercial air tourson such a route would potentially conflictwith air carrier and other flights on VictorAirways 208-210 and 562. Such a routewould also potentially conflict withoperations at two nearby airports (PearceFerry and Henderson). The length of theroute would appear to increase fuel costssubstantially. As part of a ProgrammaticAgreement entered into between the FAA,NPS, Advisory Council on HistoricPreservation, the Hualapai Tribe, and TribalHistoric Preservation Officer, the FAA hasagreed to review data to be gathered as partof a monitoring program. FAA will considerdetailed study of this alternative if themonitoring program reveals significant newinformation about the effects of the PreferredAlternative on the setting, feeling, andattributes of Hualapai traditional culturalproperties (see Section 4.2 for m0re detail).

2.3 ALTERNATIVES STUDIEDIN DETAIL

CEQ regulations and FAA Order 1050.1Dstate that the evaluation of alternativesshould “present the environmental impacts of

the proposal and alternatives in comparativeform, thus sharply defining the issues andproviding a clear basis for choice amongoptions for the decision maker and thepublic.”3 Accordingly, this section comparesthe relevant environmental effects of the NoAction and the proposed alternatives.

Descriptions of the airspace changes,commercial air tour route changes, andcommercial air tour limitations for eachalternative follow. These alternatives weredeveloped in cooperation with the NPS andwith consideration of concerns expressed byother interested parties.

2.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action

Consideration of the No Action alternative isrequired by NEPA. This alternative servesas a basis of comparison for the otheralternatives. The No Action alternativeassumes that the existing SFAR 50-2 (53 FR20264, June 2, 1988) remains in place.

Airspace Changes. The No Actionalternative would maintain the existingSFAR 50-2 procedures for operations ofaircraft in the airspace above the GrandCanyon. The SFRA dimensions wouldremain from the surface to 14,499 feet MSLin the area of the Grand Canyon. Figure 2-1illustrates the existing SFRA boundary, FFZsand the existing commercial air tour routelocations.

Commercial Air Tour Route Changes.The commercial air tour routes illustrated onFigure 2-1 would remain in place.

Operations Limitation. The No Actionalternative would place no additionaloperations limitation on commercial SFRAoperations. It is assumed that the cap on the

2-10

number of air tour aircraft implemented aspart of the final rule in December 1996remains in place.

2.3.2 Alternative 2 – Central Route(Preferred Alternative)

Airspace Changes. The airspace changes inthe December 31, 1996, final rule, asdescribed in Section 2.1, are assumed to beimplemented. Changes from the 1996 finalrule are described below.

Figure 2-2 illustrates the airspace changesconsidered for Alternative 2. TheToroweap/Shinumo FFZ has been changedto accommodate the modified DragonCorridor. Some of the changes may bedifficult to discern due to the color overlaysin the figure. The 1996 final rule FFZsshown on the figure include those that willtake effect in January 2000 or shortlythereafter, pursuant to the 1996 final rule.Additionally, they represent the changesproposed in this action as described below.

SFRA and Desert View FFZ

In the NPRM (Notice 99-11), the FAAproposed to modify the Grand CanyonSFRA by moving the eastern boundary fivenautical miles to the east. The NPRM alsoincluded a proposal to move the easternboundary of the Desert View FFZ five milesto the east. However, the Navajo Nationadvised the FAA during the public commentperiod that certain Chapters of the Nationwould be economically impacted by theproposed FFZ expansion. The NavajoNation expressed concerns that theexpansion of the FFZ would prohibitoperators from conducting contracted aerialfilming over Navajo lands in the vicinity ofthe Little Colorado River. Additionally,

comments were received regarding theextension of the FFZ over non-park land.Therefore, the FAA determined to place theDesert View FFZ boundary at the GCNPboundary. The commercial air tour routesidentified as Black-2 and Green-3 wouldremain as proposed in the July 1999 Noticeof Proposed Routes.

The current design of the eastern portion ofthe SFRA and the Desert View FFZ allowsentry and exit as well as travel over severalTCPs on the eastern side of GCNP, causingconcerns to several Native American tribes.These sites and tribal concerns about thesesites were identified through ongoingconsultation with affected tribes inaccordance with Section 106 of the NationalHistoric Preservation Act (NHPA) and theAmerican Indian Religious Freedom Act.Specific locations of TCPs are not disclosedin accordance with Sec. 304 of the NHPAthat provides for confidentiality. Theimpacts of air tours over these TCPs will bereduced or avoided by modifying the easternportion of the SFRA and the Desert ViewFFZ and by adjusting the entry and exitpoints of the commercial air tour routesaccordingly through route redesign.

This modification to the preferred alternativewill not affect the Navajo Nationeconomically and will eliminate most of theoverflights over TCPs identified by theNative Americans in the Desert View FFZ.

Bright Angel FFZ

In the NPRM (Notice 99-11), the FAAproposed to modify the Bright Angel FFZ toprovide a provisional incentive corridor, onenautical mile in width, through the BrightAngel FFZ to be used at some future dateonly by aircraft meeting a noiseefficiency/quiet technology aircraft standard.

2-11

This is identical to the corridor originallyproposed in May 1997 and withdrawn in1998. The FAA acknowledges thatrulemaking to establish a standard for noiseefficient/quiet technology aircraft is pending.Until such a standard is developed andadopted, the Bright Angel incentive corridorwill not be available for commercialoperations. The incentive corridor will passalong the northern boundary of the currentBright Angel FFZ (as defined in SFAR 50-2)in the same location as the current route.The written description of the location hasbeen modified slightly since the June NPRM(Notice 99-11) to correct a typographicalerror.

Even without a standard for noiseefficient/quiet technology aircraft it isintuitively clear that the Bright AngelCorridor would have a threefold benefit.First, fewer aircraft would be flying over thenorthern rim of the canyon along SaddleMountain, where the NPS has pointed outsome noise sensitivity. Second, noise fromthe air tour aircraft would be dispersedbetween the northern boundary of the BrightAngel FFZ and the corridor, therebyreducing the level of concentrated aircraftalong any one route. Third, opening thiscorridor only to the most noise-efficientaircraft would provide a valuable andtangible incentive for air tour operators toconvert to quieter aircraft. The GCNP couldthereby experience the benefit of a reductionin the level of aircraft noise. This incentiveroute is not modeled for noise impacts withinthis document; its benefit and/or impact willbe analyzed in a forthcoming EA for asupplemental NPRM for Noise Limitationsfor Aircraft Operations in the Vicinity of theGrand Canyon National Park.

Sanup FFZ

The FAA is modifying the Sanup FFZbecause increased aircraft operations on newBlue Direct South (BDS) would be over thenorthern portion of the newly created SanupFFZ (December 1996 final rule), at altitudesless than 3,000 feet MSL above the elevationof some areas of the Sanup Plateau. At thisaltitude, these aircraft operations may have anoise impact. Operations will increase onBDS because existing routes throughNational Canyon are eliminated.Consequently, the FAA believes that thenorthern portion of the Sanup FFZ thatwould lie beneath BDS should be eliminatedfrom the FFZ to accommodate safely anadditional route between Tusayan, Arizona,and Las Vegas, Nevada. Therefore, theFAA is proposing to modify the Sanup FFZby moving the northern portion of the FFZapproximately one mile south of the BDSroute.

Additionally, to provide for a revision of thecurrent Blue-2 commercial route over thenorthwestern portion of the GCNP, the FAAis proposing to modify the Sanup FFZ bymoving the northwestern portion of the FFZeast approximately one mile east of the Blue-2 route.

Commercial Air Tour Route Changes. Aswith the 1996 Proposed Action and 1997Written Reevaluation, commercial air tourroutes are eliminated from the center ofGCNP with expansion of theToroweap/Shinumo FFZ. Similarly to the1996 Final EA, commercial air tour routesno longer traverse south of the SanupPlateau. The largest change since the 1996Final EA and 1997 Written Reevaluationoccurs due to the expansion of the DesertView FFZ in response to Native Americanconcerns. Commercial air tour routes are

2-12

modified to reflect changes to the BrightAngel and Desert View FFZs and concernsraised by some tour operators regardingflight in the Zuni Corridor. Specifically,Alternative 2 includes the Blue Direct (nowrenamed Blue Direct North) and themodified Blue Direct South routes. Thealtitudes available for use on Blue DirectNorth range from 7,500 feet MSL to 10,500feet MSL (see Notice of Route Availability).Blue Direct South has been relocatedapproximately one mile north. In responseto comments the number of altitudesavailable for use on the Blue Direct Southhas been modified from that shown in theDraft Supplemental EA (SEA). Thealtitudes available have been reduced fromtwo to one eastbound with a higher minimumaltitude of 9,500 feet MSL. All of the trafficthat would have utilized the altitude of 8,500feet MSL will either move to the new BlueDirect North or remain outside of SFRAairspace.

With the exception of the direct routes, allother routes are the same for all of theproposed alternatives. Figure 2-2 illustratesAlternative 2 compared to the No Actionalternative.

In response to comments, the forthcomingNotice of Route Availability will permit two-way traffic in the Zuni corridor rather thanonly one-way as specified in the June Notice.The turnaround in the Zuni Corridor occurswhere the routes diverge betweenRepresentative Locations 59 and 64 (shownon Figure 2-2).

Operations Limitation. A limitation on thenumber of commercial air tours in the SFRAwould be implemented. Commercial airtours would be limited to the levels reportedto the FAA between May 1, 1997, and April30, 1998. The proposed final rule allows for

adjustment from the NPRM proposedlimitations in specific circumstances. Theseadjustments are made where individualoperators can document that their limitationshould be revised. Adjustments haveresulted in the current air tour allocationsbeing increased from the initial 88,000 to90,000. Operations serving the HualapaiTribe will be excepted from the OperationsLimitation.

A sub alternative to Alternative 2 will also beconsidered. The sub alternative allowscommercial air tours to continue to grow ata predicted rate of 3.3 percent annually. Itshould be noted that recent forecastinformation indicates that the national annualgrowth rate is approximately 2.9 percent.The FAA believes that using the 3.3 percentgrowth rate for potential impact analysiswithin this document will provideconservative results.

2.3.3 Alternative 3 – Northern Route

Airspace Changes. The airspace changesfor Alternative 3 are the same as those forAlternative 2 (see Section 2.3.2 for adetailed description). Figure 2-3 illustratesthe airspace changes considered forAlternative 3.

Commercial Air Tour Route Changes.Alternative 3 includes the same changes asAlternative 2, except Alternative 3 includesthe new Blue Direct North and the modifiedBlue Direct South routes. Figure 2-3illustrates Alternative 3 compared to the NoAction alternative.

Operations Limitation. Alternative 3assumes a limitation on the number ofcommercial air tours in the SFRA will beimplemented. Commercial air tours would

2-13

be limited to the levels reported for May 1,1997 through April 30, 1998, withadjustments (explained under Alternative 2).

A sub alternative to Alternative 3 will also beconsidered. The sub alternative allowscommercial air tours to continue to grow ata predicted rate of 3.3 percent annually.

2.3.4 Alternative 4 – Southern Route

Airspace Changes. The airspace changesfor Alternatives 4 are the same as those forAlternatives 2 and 3 (see section 2.3.2 for adetailed description). Figure 2-4 illustratesthe airspace changes considered forAlternative 4. The selection of Alternative 4for implementation may require revisions tothe Sanup FFZ, as the FFZ could beexpanded in the northerly direction andreduced along the southern edge to allow thetransit route to be completely outside of theFFZ regardless of altitude restrictions.

Commercial Air Tour Route Changes.Alternative 4 includes the same changes asAlternative 2, except that Alternative 4includes the new Blue South Direct and BlueDirect routes. Figure 2-4 illustratesAlternative 4 compared to the No Actionalternative.

Operations Limitation. A limitation on thenumber of commercial air tours in the SFRAwould be implemented. Commercial airtours would be limited to the levels reportedbetween May 1, 1997, and April 30, 1998,with adjustments (explained underAlternative 2).

A sub alternative to Alternative 4 will also beconsidered. The sub alternative allowscommercial air tours to continue to grow ata predicted rate of 3.3 percent annually.

2.3.5 Summary Comparison Evaluationof Alternatives

This section presents a summary of thealternatives in comparative format in order todefine the issues and identify the appropriatealternative. Table 2.1 provides a summarycomparison of the alternatives to the NoAction alternative. The environmentalimpacts summarized herein are discussed, byimpact category, in Chapter Four.

2-14

Table 2.1

Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Evaluation Factor Alt. 1 - No Action

(A) Alt. 2 - Central Route(Preferred Alternative)

(B) Alt.2 with Continued Growth(A) Alt. 3 - Northern Route

(B) Alt. 3 with Continued Growth(A) Alt. 4 - Southern Route

(B) Alt. 4 with Continued GrowthPotential for AdverseNoise Impacts 1

Not Significant (A) Not Significant(B) Not Significant, noiseimprovements erode over time

(A) Not Significant(B) Not Significant, noiseimprovements erode over time

(A) Not Significant(B) Not Significant, noiseimprovements erode over time

Historic, Archaeological,and Cultural ResourcesImpacts 2

Adversely Affects (A) Adversely Affects(B) Adversely Affects

(A) Adversely Affects(B) Adversely Affects

(A) Adversely Affects(B) Adversely Affects

DOT Section 4(f) Use 2 No4 (A) No(B) No

(A) No(B) No

(A) No(B) No

Visual Impacts 2 Not Significant (A) Not Significant(B) Not Significant

(A) Not Significant(B) Not Significant

(A) Potentially Significant(B) Potentially Significant

Socio/SocioeconomicImpacts

No (A) No(B) No

(A) No(B) No

(A) No(B) No

Environmental JusticeImpacts

No (A) No(B) No

(A) No(B) No

(A) No(B) No

Endangered SpeciesImpacts 3

No (A) Likely to adversely affect(B) Likely to adversely affect

(A) Likely to adversely affect(B) Likely to adversely affect

(A) Likely to adversely affect(B) Likely to adversely affect

Purpose of Action:Reduces aircraft noiseimpact within GCNP

No (A) Yes(B) No

(A) Yes(B) No

(A) Yes(B) No

Restores Natural Quiet(% of GCNP by 2008)

No (25.3%) (A) No (43.5%)(B) No (32.7%)

(A) No (44.0%)(B) No (31.9%)

(A) No (43.7%)(B) No (29.5%)

1 Significance defined using Part 150 Land Use Compatibility Standards except for cultural resources.2 Section 106 consultation completed (see Chapter Four, Section 4.2).3 Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife completed (see Chapter Four, Section 4.9).4 “No” indicates no impact for the environmental category considered.

2-15

3

3-1

Chapter ThreeAFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The description of the affected environmentfocuses on Grand Canyon characteristicswhich are relevant to the issue of air touractivity and the anticipated environmentalimpacts of the alternatives, including the NoAction alternative. Noise from aircraftoverflights is the primary impact. Asdiscussed in more detail in Chapter Four,noise levels considered here may affect thefollowing other impact categories from FAAOrder 1050.1D: historic/archaeologi-cal/cultural resources; Department ofTransportation Act, Section 4(f); wild andscenic rivers; visual; socioeconomic;environmental justice; and endangeredspecies. In addition, effects on NativeAmerican communities and wilderness willbe addressed.

The following section updates the 1996 FinalEA with information provided by theHualapai Tribe, Havasupai Tribe and NPS.It also reflects implementation of the GeneralManagement Plan for the GCNP.

3.1 REGIONAL CONTEXT

The Grand Canyon is a unique natural andcultural resource. The Grand Canyonincludes the GCNP as well as major portionsof the reservations of the Hualapai andHavasupai Tribes and Navajo Nation. TheGrand Canyon annually attracts more thanfive million visitors from around the worldannually who view the canyon from motorvehicles, riverboats, aircraft and by foot,horse, mule, and bicycle. Within the Grand

Canyon, the GCNP is designated as a WorldHeritage Site, and more than ninety percentof the GCNP is eligible to be designated as aWilderness Area. The area potentiallyaffected by the alternatives includes landswithin the SFRA boundary (as shown inFigure 1-1). The following sections describethe Grand Canyon and its surrounding areaswithin the potentially affected area.

The 1995 GCNP General ManagementPlan/Environmental Impact Statementcontains detailed information about theGCNP. GCNP lies within Coconino andMohave Counties in the State of Arizona,and is located close to the States of Utah andNevada (see Figure 1-1). The park isbounded by Kaibab National Forest and theBureau of Land Management’s Arizona StripDistrict to the north, by Glen CanyonNational Recreational Area to the northeast,by the Navajo Indian Reservation to the east,by Kaibab National Forest and the Hualapaiand Havasupai Indian Reservations to thesouth, and by Lake Mead NationalRecreation Area to the west.

Coconino County, Arizona, contains thethree main entrances to GCNP and thecommunities most directly affected by thesocial and economic effects of parkoperations. Most South Rim visitors spendat least one night in Coconino County.Communities in Coconino County andUtah’s Kane and Washington Counties areservice areas for visitors to the North Rimand Tuweep. Coconino County is thesecond largest county in area in the UnitedStates. In addition to encompassing much of

3-2

the area of GCNP, it contains all or portionsof the Navajo, Hopi, Havasupai, Hualapai,and Kaibab Paiute Indian reservations.4 TheKaibab Paiute Indian reservation, located atthe Arizona-Utah border, does not boundany portion of the GCNP and is outside theaffected area. However, the tribes maintainan ancestral interest in the Grand Canyon.The San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe residesin Coconino County but does not havereservation lands.

3.2 GRAND CANYON

The canyon itself ranges from 1 to 18 mileswide and is over one mile deep in places.The Grand Canyon lies entirely on thesouthern portion of the Colorado Plateau.The higher elevations of the plateau areforested, while the lower elevations are aseries of desert basins and deeply incisedcanyons. Elevations range fromapproximately 1,200 feet on the canyon floorat the western end to over 9,000 feet on theNorth Rim. On both rims, the topography isgenerally flat, making land travel relativelyeasy. In contrast, topography below the rimsis characterized by steep talus slopes;precipitous cliffs; crumbly decomposing rockledges; and long, narrow side canyons.

The Grand Canyon contains significantexamples of most of the natural themesrepresented within the Colorado Plateauphysiographic region, including: plains,plateaus, and mesas; work of volcanism;sculpture of the land; river systems andlakes; geologic history; boreal forest; and dryconiferous forest and woodland. The GrandCanyon also offers a geologic recordcovering the first three eras of geologicaltime (2.5 billion years), making it one of themost complete records of geological historyfound anywhere in the world.

3.3 NATIVE AMERICANCOMMUNITIES

Six Native American communities,represented by eight separate tribalgovernments, have ancestral ties to theGrand Canyon. The Colorado River, thecanyon, the larger landscape in which theseoccur, and many of the park resources areconsidered sacred by many within theseNative American communities. Within thislarger landscape are sites, locations, andresources that are of traditional significanceto all tribes in some cases, and to only sometribes in others. These Native Americantraditional cultural properties (TCP) aretangible historic properties potentiallyeligible for listing on the National Register ofHistoric Places because of their associationwith cultural practices and beliefs rooted inhistory and their importance in maintainingthe cultural identity of Native Americancommunities.

The following is a summary of eachcommunity’s interests, including spiritual,traditional and other interests in the Canyon.5

Havasupai

The Havasupai are one of 14 bands ofYuman-speaking Pai Indians, and one of twotribes still living within Grand Canyon. Theyshare common ancestry and a similarlanguage with other local Pai tribes, theHualapai and Yavapai. Their home inHavasu Canyon lies within their reservation,which includes land on the CoconinoPlateau, and to the east and west of HavasuCanyon. According to their creation story,this region is the place where they began,and has always been home to their ancestors.

3-3

Historically, the Havasupai occupied aterritory from the Aubrey Cliffs on the westto the Little Colorado River on the east, andfrom the Colorado River on the north to thevicinity of Bill Williams Mountain on thesouth. As one Havasupai tribal memberexpressed it, “As you drive on U.S. Highway180, near the town of Valle, all themountains you see surround Havasupaiterritory.”

Within these boundaries, the Havasupaitraditionally subsisted by hunting, gathering,and farming. Much of the native flora andfauna of the Canyon and the adjacentCoconino Plateau have traditionally beenimportant to the Havasupai for botheconomic and religious purposes.

In the late summer, pinyon nuts werecollected. Groups of Havasupai, andsometimes Hopi, Navajo, and Paiute, wouldgather in the same area to collect the nuts.One favorite Havasupai pinyon camp waslocated between Moqui Tank and Big Tank.Havasupai camps were also located at cavesites along Coconino Wash and near present-day locations of Moqui Lodge, Hull Tank,Cecil Dodd Tank, and Homestead Tank.Since resources on the Plateau were limitedduring the winter, the Havasupai organizedinto family, extended family, or band units,returning to areas known to belong to thesegroups. Hunting continued through thewinter all over Coconino Plateau, while inspring, mescal was collected on the benchesof the Canyon. Other locations of seasonalactivities on the Plateau included Rain Tank,Pasture Wash, Drift Fence, and the LittleColorado River.

The Havasupai accessed the Plateau througha series of trails that were constructed longbefore anglos first visited the area. BrightAngel Trail, Mystic Springs Trail, and

Hermit Basin Trail were originally HavasupaiTrails, rebuilt by anglos in the 1890s. TheMoqui Trail was a trade route between HopiMesas and Havasupai Canyon; it had beenalmost completely abandoned, however, by1910.

Many of the trails that ascended the Plateauran to water sources. Rain tank, now part ofthe Grand Canyon Airport, was a watersource used by generations of Havasupai forboth subsistence camps and as a water stopduring long-distance travel. Another routeeast from Rain Tank passes through LongJim Canyon. A traditional Havasupai storytells of an old woman who lived in one of thecaves along the limestone walls.6

Hopi

The Hopi Tribe is a federally recognizedIndian Tribe. The Hopi Reservation issurrounded by the Navajo Reservation and isdivided by the Dinnebito Wash and PolaccaWash as they drain toward the LittleColorado River. According to Hopitradition, the Hopi people began theiremergence into the present world throughthe Sipapu, a travertine cone in the LittleColorado River gorge outside the boundariesof the GCNP. From that place, they spreadthroughout the southwestern United States.

The migrations of some of the clans includedresidence in the Grand Canyon.Archaeological investigations substantiatethese claims, indicating they have used thecanyon since about 700 A.D.

Hopi people continue to use the GrandCanyon for important ceremonial and ritualpurposes. Some of their most sacred sitesare inside and immediately adjacent to theGCNP, such as the Hopi Salt Mines on theColorado River inside the GCNP.

3-4

Hualapai

The Hualapai Tribe is a federally recognizedIndian Tribe whose ancestral lands covermillions of acres in and around the GrandCanyon. The Hualapai Indian Reservation,established in 1883, is located along thesouth rim of the Grand Canyon and theColorado River in northwestern Arizona on aportion of those ancestral lands. TheHualapai Reservation encompassesapproximately one million acres of land andextends for 108 miles of the Colorado River,from mile post 165 to mile post 273.

About two-thirds of the Reservation islocated on the lower elevation of theHualapai Plateau, and the eastern third islocated on the higher elevation CoconinoPlateau. Terrain elevations fluctuate from2,000 feet at the bottom of the GrandCanyon to 7,000 feet. Vegetation varieswidely throughout the Reservation. At thewestern end, the vegetation in the vicinity ofthe Grand Canyon rim is primarily desertscrub land, chaparral and desert grassland.“Hualapai” means People of the Tall Pines,and this vegetative cover is found on thecentral and eastern portions of theReservation in the vicinity of the Canyonrim. Hardwood trees are found at higherelevations and along streams.

The Hualapai Tribe has an enrolledmembership of about 2,200 persons.Approximately 1,800 persons reside on theHualapai Reservation, including about 1,000enrolled tribal members. Most of theseresidents live in Peach Springs, the Tribalcapital. Peach Springs is located near thesouthern edge of the Reservation onHighway 66, approximately 16 miles southof the Canyon rim as the crow flies and 50miles east of Kingman, Arizona. The tribal

economy is based on tourism, river rafting,cattle ranching, hunting expeditions, timbercutting, government services, and traditionalcrafts.

The vast majority of the HualapaiReservation is undeveloped. Under Triballaw, development of any kind is prohibited incanyons considered sacred to the Hualapaipeople. Non-Hualapai may not enter thesecanyons. The Hualapai Tribe manages itslands for wildlife protection, culturalresources preservation, and forestry. TheTribe has set aside an area along thesouthern rim of the Grand Canyon fortourism and recreation. This area includesthe Grand Canyon West Airport.

Navajo

The Navajo Nation is a federally recognizedIndian Tribe. The Navajo Reservationborders GCNP from Lee’s Ferry to theconfluence of the Little Colorado River. TheNavajo tribal government is divided intolocal governances called Chapters. TheCameron and Gap-Bodaway Chapters borderGCNP.

Archaeological and linguistic evidencesuggest that the Athapaskan-speakingancestors of the people now known as theNavajo migrated into the AmericanSouthwest sometime between about 1000A.D. and 1500 A.D. They spread into thearea to the east of the Colorado River andnorth of the Little Colorado River during the19th century.

The Navajo view the Colorado and the LittleColorado Rivers as sacred beings.

3-5

San Juan Southern Paiute, KaibabPaiute, Shivwits Paiute, and Paiute Tribesof Utah

The Kaibab and San Juan Southern PaiuteTribes are federally recognized Indian Tribes,while the Shivwits are not at this time.Kaibab, Shivwits, and San Juan SouthernPaiutes are three separate tribes, however,their beliefs, ties to the Grand Canyon, andconcerns are similar. Therefore, they will bediscussed as one people, the SouthernPaiute. The NPS General Management Planfor the GCNP indicates that the SouthernPaiute are located within the Navajoreservations although there is no specificreservation designation shown on standardlocation maps. Additionally, the KaibabReservation (considered Southern Paiute bythe General Management Plan for theGCNP) is located on the northern border ofArizona and is approximately 23 miles at itsclosest point to the GCNP.

Archaeological evidence of Southern Paiuteuse of the area may be found dating as earlyas 1150 A.D. The traditional boundary forthe Southern Paiute within Grand Canyonextends from the junction of the Paria andColorado Rivers downstream to KanabCreek.

Zuni

The Pueblo of Zuni is a federally recognizedIndian Tribe. The Zuni, while not residentsof the affected environment, have ancestralties to the Grand Canyon. The traditionalarea of Zuni land use is bounded by the SanFrancisco Peaks and portions of the LittleColorado River in the north. Archaeologicalsites, traditional cultural properties, andother sacred locations along the ColoradoRiver corridor and the Little Colorado Riverare important to Zuni traditional and cultural

values, providing important spiritual linkagesto the place of emergence for the Zunipeople.

3.4 GRAND CANYONNATIONAL PARK

GCNP encompasses 1.2 million acres of theGrand Canyon in northern Arizona (seeFigure 1-1). GCNP, designated a WorldHeritage Site in 1978, is one of the few areasin the world meeting the selection criteria forboth natural and cultural resources. GCNPserved 4,928,509 visitors in 1993 and hasboth undeveloped (natural) and developedareas as defined by the NPS.7 The majorityof the Park is part of the NPS NaturalManagement Zone, comprised of proposedwilderness areas and non-wilderness areasand trails. Each of the developed areas(South Rim, North Rim, Tuweep, and thecorridor trails) tend to have uniquecharacteristics.8 These characteristics aregenerally related to the level of development.The major areas most relevant to this studyare briefly described in the followingsections.

In response to the 1995 GeneralManagement Plan for GCNP, the NPS hastaken the following major actions to reducenoise from all sources in the park (actionsaffecting only specific areas of the Park arediscussed in the appropriate sections below):

• Since 1997, the NPS at GCNP hascontracted for the use of an MD-900NOTAR (No Tail Rotor) helicopter, oneof the quietest helicopters available, toaccomplish NPS emergency andadministrative needs. The Park has oneof the most extensive review andapproval processes in the nation toensure that non-emergency use of NPS

3-6

contract aircraft is appropriate and isconducted in a manner that minimizesnoise and other impacts on Parkresources and visitors.

• In part to reduce noise, motor vehicleswere restricted in 1998 on manyprimitive roads and trails on the Northand South Rims, and in proposedwilderness and non-wilderness areas.

• A draft wilderness management plan,which was reviewed by the public in1998, proposed standards for the park’sproposed wilderness areas (over 90percent of the park) concerning thenumber of occurrences of human noisesper hour or day (e.g., aircraft, motors onthe river, other parties on trails or incamps).

• Remote ranger stations in the park areprimarily solar-powered, with gasoline ordiesel generators rarely used as backup.

• Noise reduction considerations arebeginning to be included in equipmentselection criteria and facility design andoperational practices for NPS and parkconcessions.

• Buses are prohibited from idling theirengines at parking areas and overlooks.

The developed areas in GCNP include theSouth Rim, the North Rim, Tuweep, and theCross-canyon Corridor (including PhantomRanch and Indian Garden).

3.4.1 South Rim

The South Rim developed area, located inthe southeastern portion of the park, is by farthe most developed and visited area of the

park. Grand Canyon Village, located on theSouth Rim just north of the town of Tusayanand GCNP Airport, is the largest and mostvisited developed area in the park. TheSouth Rim developed area also includesHermit’s Rest, Desert View, and numerousrim viewpoints. According to the park’sGeneral Management Plan, the South Rimdeveloped area will remain the focus of thevast majority of park visitation. However,limits will be placed on the use of privateautomobiles, primarily by limiting people totransit systems and alternative transportation(e.g., bicycles) in Grand Canyon Village andWest Rim Drive. In addition to the noise reduction actionsrecently implemented Park-wide, thefollowing actions have been implemented onthe South Rim:

• Planning and design efforts are in thefinal stages for: constructing a light railsystem between Tusayan and GrandCanyon Village; constructing atransportation and orientation center atMather Point; and using electric busesand other alternative transportationsystems in the Grand Canyon Villagearea. All of these will reduce automobiletraffic and congestion on the South Rim,thereby presumably reducing noise.

• Procedures have been implemented tolimit the use of train whistles to theminimum necessary for safe operation.

The South Rim will also continue to providediverse opportunities to view the Canyonand to experience solitude in natural settingsas well as social exchange in developedareas.9 The visitor experience on the SouthRim is, to a large extent, currently orientedaround the automobile. However, theGeneral Management Plan calls for limits on

3-7

the number of vehicles parking on the SouthRim, restricting private vehicles from manyareas, and encouraging visitors to use transit,pedestrian paths, and bicycles for theirprimary access.10

3.4.2 North Rim

The North Rim is located in the northeasternportion of the park, and includes the NorthRim Village on Bright Angel Pointapproximately ten air miles north and acrossthe canyon from Grand Canyon Village. Thepark’s General Management Plan calls forthe North Rim to provide a low-key,uncrowded atmosphere that offers visitorsopportunities to be intimately involved withthe environment. Under the GeneralManagement Plan, the North Rim willcontinue to accommodate less than tenpercent of the park’s visitors and roads intothe North Rim will continue to be closed tovehicles during the winter. Also, morevisitors will be encouraged to visit the areabetween Point Imperial and Cape Royal torelieve congestion in the Bright Angel Pointarea, and to continue to visit Point Sublimevia dirt road (see Figure 1-1).

3.4.3 Marble Canyon

Marble Canyon is a narrow arm of GCNPthrough which the Colorado River entersGCNP. Marble Canyon extends northwardfrom the North Rim about 40 air miles toLees Ferry. The GCNP boundary is less thanfive air miles wide for the length of MarbleCanyon (see Figure 1-1).

3.4.4 Tuweep

Tuweep lies approximately 50 air miles tothe west and 15 air miles north of and on the

opposite side of the canyon from GrandCanyon Village. Tuweep served approxi-mately 11,000 visitors in 1993, and is uniquewithin the Grand Canyon because it isremote yet provides unpaved car access.The NPS goal for this area is that it“continue to provide uncrowded, primitiveexperiences that are dominated by nature andsolitude,” including minimal visitorfacilities.11 Toroweap overlook is a primevisitor site in this area. In addition, TuweepAirstrip, a State-owned strip with anunpaved 3,500-foot runway, is locatedapproximately five air miles north ofToroweap Overlook and immediatelyadjacent to the park boundary.

3.4.5 Inner Canyon

The Inner Canyon includes about 90 percentof the park area, including most of thebackcountry trails and campsites in the park,and the Colorado River. The park’s GeneralManagement Plan calls for managing almostall of the Inner Canyon as wilderness.Exceptions include the Cross-canyonCorridor that includes Phantom Ranch andthe other developed sites below the rim, andpossibly the Colorado River (see Figure 1-1). In addition to the noise reduction actionsrecently implemented park-wide, commercialriver outfitters are voluntarily converting tonew low emission, low noise four-strokeoutboard motor technology in an effort toreduce motorboat noise concerns on theColorado River through the park’s innercanyon (about one-fifth of the fleet wasconverted in 1998). NPS motorboats useonly the new, low noise motors, however,the NPS has reduced its use of motors onriver patrols to about half the time, usingoars only for the other patrols. No motorsare allowed on the Colorado River at all

3-8

from September 16 to December 15 eachyear.

3.5 CLIMATIC CONDITIONS

The climate at the Grand Canyon is diverseand directly affects flights over the area.This is due to elevation changes and to theunique effect the canyon itself has onweather. The region experiences weather extremesduring both summer and winter. In thecontext of air tour activity and aircraftoverflights, summer conditions (May 1 -September 30) are generally more critical forseveral reasons. First, more tourist andresultant air tour activity occurs during thewarm season. Second, aircraft performancetends to be decreased during hot weather.This makes hot weather aircraft performanceparameters critical when evaluating noiseabatement options. Hot conditions also tendto require pilots to increase aircraft enginespeed to generate the additional thrustneeded to offset decreased hot airperformance. Increased engine speedgenerally results in greater noise emissions.Third, the propagation characteristics ofnoise tend to be affected by hot conditionssuch that sound travels farther. In the summer at the North Rim, days aregenerally clear and crisp with occasionalafternoon thunderstorms or heavy rain;evenings are chilly. Average summer highand low temperatures are 75 and 43 degreesFahrenheit, respectively. The North Rimreceives more precipitation than any otherlocation in the park, with an average of 25inches per year. During the summer at the South Rim,afternoon thundershowers and occasional

heavy rains can be expected. Averagesummer high and low temperatures are 82and 51 degrees Fahrenheit, respectively. At Phantom Ranch (at the bottom of thecanyon) daytime temperatures are extremelyhigh during the summer months, with highsand lows averaging 106 and 78 degreesFahrenheit, respectively. Summer days in the Grand Canyon regionare warm and turbulent. Thunderstormsdevelop almost daily over some parts of theregion from late June through earlySeptember as a result of local convectionaldisturbances due to excessive heating of theground. These storms can be frequent,heavy and violent, but are usually localized.Turbulence, hail, rain, snow, lighting, severeupdrafts and downdrafts, and icingconditions may be associated with thesethunderstorms. The storms usually last lessthan 30 minutes but pilots must modify theirflight routes to avoid such weather. TheFAA recommends that pilots stay at least 10to 20 miles away from thunderstorms. “Density altitude” is also a factor that mustbe considered in developing managementalternatives involving aircraft. It is ameasure of air density used by pilots as anindex in calculating the performancecapability of aircraft. Density altitudebecomes a critical factor in all warm-weatherand high-altitude flight planning. High-density altitude is a hazard since it reducesall aircraft performance parameters.Elevation (or altitude), humidity, andtemperature all determine air density. Whenall three are high, density altitude is high andnormal horsepower output is reduced,propeller and wing efficiency decrease, andan airplane requires a longer takeoff rollbefore becoming airborne. Additionally,rate-of-climb is decreased and a higher true

3-9

airspeed is required. Flights are sometimesplanned for the early morning or lateafternoon hours to offset the effects ofdensity altitude, as well as to take advantageof decreased turbulence. Turbulence in the Grand Canyon is usuallycaused by differential heating of the canyon’ssurface or by strong winds. Updrafts causedby differential heating are often used bypilots to assist aircraft in climbing,sometimes a difficult task on a hot summerday when an aircraft is fully loaded. Canyonflying is much like mountain flying, andabrupt changes of wind direction andvelocity must be anticipated. Winter conditions are also extreme and varywidely. The North Rim is closed during thewinter because it receives as much as ten feetof snow. Average winter high and lowtemperatures are 39 and 18 degreesFahrenheit, respectively. The South Rim is always open, because itgenerally receives less than three feet ofsnow. Average winter high and lowtemperatures are 43 and 20 degreesFahrenheit, respectively. Winters at Phantom Ranch are also mild,with maximum temperatures averaging 56degrees Fahrenheit and the lows rarelydipping below freezing. The canyon belowthe rims receives about eight inches ofprecipitation each year. During winter months, the Grand Canyonregion experiences snowstorms and low-level stratus clouds. There are also shortperiods of temperature inversions whenclouds fill the canyon (cold air drains intoand is trapped within the canyon) while therims are being warmed by direct sunshine.

3.6 PHYSICAL RESOURCES

The Grand Canyon is noted for its diversetopographical and geological features. Italso holds a historical record dating backmillennia. This section describes thesephysical and cultural resources. Thesecharacteristics affect the distribution ofvisitors and residents and the expectationsvisitors have for their experience at varioussites. Moreover, certain areas tend to bemore sensitive to aircraft noise. Thedifference in elevation may also affectaircraft performance at different parklocations.

3.6.1 Popular Trails and Sights atGCNP

Most visitors to GCNP arrive at the SouthRim. The majority of visitors view thecanyon from the rim but do not explore thecanyon below the rim. Of those that ventureonto the corridor trails (the trails whichprovide main visitor access to destinationsbelow the rim and connect the North andSouth Rims), most are day-hikers. Day-hikers hike a short enough distance to allowtheir return to the canyon rim before sunset.The primary trails are the North and SouthKaibab Trails and the Bright Angel Trail.12

In addition, the inner canyon trails whichreceive the most use outside the corridorinclude the Hermit, Grandview, Tanner,South Bass, Hance/Red Canyon, andThunder River Trails. Within the impact analysis area (depicted inFigure 1-1), popular sites include Hermit’sRest (on the South Rim), Bright Angel Point,Phantom Ranch, Point Sublime, PointImperial, Toroweap Point, and SupaiVillage.

3-10

3.6.2 Grand Canyon West Tourism andRecreation Areas in the HualapaiReservation

Grand Canyon West is an area ofapproximately 9,000 acres in the northwestcorner of the Hualapai Reservation. TheHualapai Tribe has designated the GrandCanyon West area for economicdevelopment through tourism andrecreational uses. Since 1988, the HualapaiTribe has worked with air and bus servicesbased in Las Vegas, Nevada, to bring visitorsto Grand Canyon West. Grand CanyonWest receives approximately 100,000visitors annually. Current improvements atGrand Canyon West consist of a pavedairstrip, a terminal building, a visitor centerwith shops and restrooms, paved roads toscenic vistas, mobile homes for GrandCanyon West employee lodging, water tanks,a dining facility with a scenic vista at GuanoPoint where lunch is served to visitors, andhiking trails along the Grand Canyon Rim.An undeveloped Grand Canyon viewing areaat Quartermaster Point is part of the GrandCanyon West tours conducted by a Hualapaitribal corporation. The Tribe has invested 15million dollars in these improvements and oninfrastructure to accommodate furthertourism development at Grand Canyon West.

In addition, a Hualapai tribal enterpriseconducts float trips down portions of theColorado River. The Tribe grants trespasspermits for vehicles that use the DiamondCreek Road to access the Colorado River.The Tribe also regulates trophy big-gamehunting on the plateau and smaller canyonsalong the Grand Canyon through permits forDesert bighorn sheep, elk, antelope, andmountain lion; a tribal guide mustaccompany all hunters. The number ofpermits is limited to ensure conservation ofgame species.

The Hualapai Tribe has designated GrandCanyon West for further development toserve larger numbers of visitors and toaccommodate overnight visitors. The Tribeanticipates that development will includemoving the airport away from the rim andconstructing a lodge at QuartermasterCanyon, one or more restaurants, amuseum/cultural center, and additionalhiking trails.13 The Tribe intends toconstruct all structures with low profiles andCanyon-view windows designed to providevisitors with scenic vistas while minimizingthe visual impact of the building from theCanyon Rim area and the Colorado River.With these improvements, the Tribe projectsthat visitors will increase to approximately500,000 annually in six years. The Tribe’splans for Grand Canyon West are theprimary means identified by the Tribe toaddress its high unemployment rate whilepreserving the Tribe’s natural and culturalresources. Areas designated fordevelopment at Grand Canyon West areaway from important traditional cultural siteareas. The Tribe also plans to improve thehabitat at Grand Canyon West to increasewildlife native to the area.

3.6.3 Historic/Cultural/ArchaeologicalSites in the GCNP

Historic properties in GCNP listed in theNational Register of Historic Places consistprimarily of buildings associated withtourism, park administration and operations,and mining enterprises. In total, 884buildings are included in the park’s list ofclassified structures, 61 of which arearchaeological sites with standing walls.14

Four historic districts and two historicbuildings on the South Rim are listed in the

3-11

National Register of Historic Places. Theseand other eligible properties are identified inthe 1995 GCNP General ManagementPlan/Environmental Impact Statement.Eligible properties receive the sameprotection as listed properties (in theNational Register) under the NationalHistoric Preservation Act (NHPA). TheGrand Canyon Village Historic Districtincludes some 238 buildings, four of whichhave been designated as National HistoricLandmarks: the “El Tovar” Hotel, the GrandCanyon park operations building, the GrandCanyon powerhouse, and the Grand Canyonrailroad station. The Mary Elizabeth JaneColter National Landmark District (alsodesignated a national historic landmark)consists of four buildings: Hopi House,Lookout Studio (both of which are also inthe Grand Canyon Village Historic District),Hermits Rest, and Desert View Watchtower.The Grandview Mine and Orphan Minehistoric districts, the latter having beendetermined eligible for listing in 1994, arerepresentative examples of mining operationsin the park. Two other national registerproperties are located on the South Rim: thewater reclamation plant and the TusayanRuins.15

Three historic districts on the North Rim arelisted in the National Register of HistoricPlaces. These include the Grand Canyon Inn(North Rim Inn) and Campground District,the Grand Canyon North Rim HeadquartersHistoric District, and the Grand CanyonLodge Historic District, which is adesignated National Historic Landmark.16

Other historical districts in the park includethe Cross-Canyon Corridor District and theTrans-Canyon Telephone Line District. TheCross-Canyon Corridor District includes 44buildings and structures as well as the BrightAngel, South Kaibab, North Kaibab, and

connecting river trails. Among the principalstructures in the district are four trailsiderock shelters and the Phantom Ranchcomplex, including the five original stonebuildings designed by Mary Jane Colter forthe Fred Harvey Company along BrightAngel Creek at the bottom of the GrandCanyon in 1922.17

Archaeological resources are also prevalent.The earliest suggestion of human use of theGrand Canyon is a Folsom projectile pointdiscovered in the Marble Canyon area, whichmay have been left there as early as 10,500years ago. Consistent, well-documentedevidence of human use of the Grand Canyonappears in the form of small figures made ofsplit-willow twigs that represent gameanimals and date to about 2,500 B.C.Habitation levels of the canyon appear tohave been relatively stable until around 500A.D., when small groups of basket makersbegan living in modest villages of circularpit-houses with mud and brush roofs, andusing a distinctive gray pottery. Thepopulation of the canyon then began to growconsiderably. The population increaseddramatically by 1100 A.D.; of the more than2,700 archaeological sites known within thepark, 70 percent were occupied between1050 A.D. and 1150 A.D.18

Only a small portion of the park has beenformally surveyed for archaeological sites,but more than 3,700 have been recorded.The river corridor, the southern extension ofthe Walhalla Plateau on the North Rim(known as Walhalla Glades), portions of theGrand Canyon Village, the trans-canyoncorridor, and portions of East Rim Drivehave been systematically surveyed forarchaeological resources. These are all areasthat receive heavy visitation and disturbanceby modern visitors. The remainder of thecanyon has not been thoroughly inventoried.

3-12

Archaeologists estimate there may be asmany as 61,000 sites in the park. Thedensity of sites in surveyed areas averages 1site in 20 acres and ranges from 1 site forevery 7 acres in the vicinity of the GrandCanyon Village to 1 site in 349 acres onSwamp Ridge. The estimated density for theNorth Rim is 1 site in every 14 acres and 1site in every 31 acres on the South Rim.19

Site density on the South Rim is high, witharchaeological materials nearly continuousfrom Buggeln Hill (east of the Kaibabmonocline) to Desert View. In addition tothe prehistoric materials, the area containsremains suggesting limited and continuoususe into historic times. The area near theHance trailhead is known to be sacred to theHavasupai.20

The North Rim has some of the mostimportant archaeological sites in the park,especially in the Walhalla Glades area. Theexpansion and exploitation of the North Rimby ancestral Puebloan peoples is evidencedby the extensive remains found on the NorthRim, particularly in Walhalla Glades.Intensive surveys of this 4,000-acre areahave located hundreds of sites. There areonly three known archaeological sites nearBright Angel Point, but none are within theexisting development area. One smallmasonry structure lies near the Rim Transepttrail and is currently interpreted to thepublic.21

There are a large number of archaeologicalremains in the Tuweep area; the entireEsplanade consists of a dispersed scatter.Three recorded sites are within thecampground and are sustaining ongoingimpacts from visitor use.22 The corridortrails were used prehistorically and passmany archaeological sites of varying size andimportance. The trails have been surveyed

for archaeological resources, but subsequentchecks have indicated that the existing dataare of poor quality. Archaeological sitesnear trails often receive some of the greatestimpacts from erosion and illicit collection.Human burials associated with ancestralPuebloan occupation have been found at anarchaeological site near Cottonwood Campon the North Kaibab Trail.23

Phantom Ranch contains one well-studiedpueblo and a number of features associatedwith it. Human burials have been foundnearby. Besides having considerableevidence of Puebloan use, Indian Gardenwas the home of several Havasupai familiesuntil well into the 20th century.24

3.6.4 Historic/Cultural/ArchaeologicalSites in the Hualapai Reservation

The Hualapai Tribe are descendants of the14 bands of the Pai (people) from the GrandCanyon and vicinity in the northwest quarterof Arizona. The Hualapai have occupied andused the lands and water lying within theiraboriginal territory, including their presentReservation, for more than a thousand years.The Colorado River itself is a significantlandmark for the Hualapai, both physicallyand spiritually. The northern boundary ofthe Hualapai Reservation is the ColoradoRiver. The Hualapai traditionally practicedagriculture and hunted game extensively inand around the Grand Canyon and tributarycanyons. Traditional Hualapai dwellings aresmall, dome-shaped structures, known aswicki-ups, constructed with small poles andbranches covered by juniper bark orthatched. Traditional structures also includerock shelters, sweat houses, and rectangular,flat-roofed shade houses. Traditionalceremonial sites continue to be used today.

3-13

By agreement with the NPS, dated August20, 1996, the Hualapai Tribal HistoricPreservation Officer (THPO) (the Directorof the Hualapai Department of CulturalResources (HDCR)) assumed certainresponsibilities of the State HistoricPreservation Officer, including those forSection 106 of the NHPA, for the HualapaiReservation.

In March 1998, the FAA and the HualapaiTribe entered into a Statement of Work(SOW) providing for the HDCR to conductan Ethnographic Archaeological Study. TheSOW was accompanied by a firm fixed pricecontract. This study will allow the HDCR toassist the FAA in identifying, documenting,and evaluating TCPs within the area ofpotential effect (APE) for FAA actions overthe Hualapai Reservation. The FAA actionscovered by the study are actions incompliance with Public Law 100-91,planning the revisions to the SFRA in thevicinity of the GCNP and the associated airtour routes. The SOW provides for a three-phased study.

The first phase of the study was to addressareas considered especially critical andsensitive. It included relevant archivalresearch for recorded TCPs andarcheological sites within the entire APE.Phase I of the study included areas affectedby both existing air tour routes and theproposal to shift the southern portion of Blue2 out of the GCNP onto the Reservation.The second phase was to address other areasof the APE. The third phase was to addressthe Comprehensive Aircraft NoiseManagement Plan, for which FAAcontemplated a programmatic agreementunder Section 106 of the National HistoricPreservation Act. In the SOW, the APE wasdefined as the area within three miles of thecenterline of the proposed commercial air

tour routes. The SOW was to be modified ifthe FAA proposed to change the proposedcommercial air tour routes. In December1998, the Tribe provided a draft preliminaryreport for Phase I of the Ethnographic study.

After the SOW was signed, based in partupon consultation with the Hualapai Tribeand THPO, FAA revised the proposedcommercial air tour routes. Among otherthings, the revised proposed action wouldeliminate existing commercial air tour routessouth and west of Surprise Canyon. InMarch 1999, the HDCR submitted the finalEthnographic Study for Phase I. Based uponthat Report, at least seven areas of concernappeared to be affected by the proposedaction.

In July 1999, FAA met with the HualapaiTribe and THPO to revise the SOW forPhase II of the Study to account for theproposed route changes and associated noiseexposure. During this meeting, the Tribeproposed to revise the APE using thestandards proposed by the NPS in January1999 and subsequently adopted for theGCNP.25 To facilitate consultation, FAAoffered to expand the APE to include the 20dB LAeq12h noise contour for the PreferredAlternative. In August 1999, at the requestof the Tribe, FAA provided documentationto support definition of the APE as threemiles on either side of the centerline ofcommercial air tour routes. In mid-September, the Tribe proposed to define theAPE as “…the entire area extending fromthe Colorado River on the north to the linedrawn on the attached map to the south andfrom the western boundary of the HualapaiReservation to the eastern boundary of theHualapai Reservation. This APE would haveincluded approximately 95% of the HualapaiReservation and areas approximately 40 to50 miles from air tour routes.

3-14

In mid-October, the parties agreed that theAPE would consist of those areas on theHualapai Reservation within either or both(1) the 20 dB LAeq12h noise contour asdepicted on Figure A-1 of the June 1999Draft SEA (i.e. for the Preferred Alternative)or (2) the 20 dB LAeq12h noise contour for thePreferred Alternative in the December 1996Final Environmental Assessment, asamended in the October 1997 WrittenReevaluation. The APE would also includethose areas identified as critical and sensitivethat lie partly under or abut one or both ofthe above-described noise contours andwhere the Hualapai Tribe establish to thesatisfaction of FAA that the integrity of theentire canyon or area is essential for religiousor cultural reasons, including but not limitedto Merwitca Canyon.

The parties also agreed that Phase II studywould be completed in two parts. Phase II(A) would evaluate at least 12 additionalcanyons and areas identified as especiallycritical and sensitive. Phase II (B) wouldevaluate other TCPs that may be located inthe remainder of the APE not covered byprior phases of the study.26 Phase II (A),which was commenced by the HDCR in July1999, pending amendment of the SOW, wasto be completed on or before November 24,1999. The federal agencies and the Tribeand THPO signed an amended SOW onNovember 19, 1999.

The Hualapai Tribe has identified the areaswithin the APE that are considered especiallycritical and sensitive. The EthnographicStudy reports for Phase I, dated March 31,1999, and Phase IIA, dated December 3,1999, identified 10 TCPs. Additionally, theHualapai Tribe and THPO provided FAAwith a December 15, 1999, list of 40 TCPs.Based upon these reports and information

provided by the Hualapai Tribe and THPOduring Section 106 consultation, theundertaking may alter the characteristics ofat least some of the Hualapai TCPs. TheFAA has determined in consultation with theHualapai Tribe and THPO that these 40TCPs meet the criteria for inclusion in theNational Register of Historic Places. FAAand NPS, with the Advisory Council onHistoric Preservation, have entered into aProgrammatic Agreement with the HualapaiTribe and THPO to comply with Section106.

The HDCR has provided FAA withextensive information about TCPs located onthe Hualapai Reservation and archaeologicalsites associated with those TCPs pursuant tothe SOW, as amended. The Hualapai Tribehas also provided information to FAA inwritten comments and correspondence onprevious route proposals and verbally inmeetings with FAA since 1996. Throughthese communications, the Hualapai Tribehas indicated that the natural quiet, privacy,and natural viewscape of the TCPs on theHualapai Reservation are importantcharacteristics of these sites that areconsidered to contribute to their eligibilityfor listing in the National Register of HistoricPlaces.

Confidential information about specific TCPsand associated archaeological sites on theHualapai Reservation is not disclosed here toprotect those resources. Section 304 of theNHPA, as amended, and Section 9(a) of theArchaeological Resources Protection Act of1979 authorize the restriction of informationabout the location, nature, and character ofcultural and archaeological resources wheredisclosure may create a risk of harm to theresources or their setting. As explained inNPS’ National Register Bulletin 29,“Guidelines for Restricting Information

3-15

About Historic and Prehistoric Resources,”“[c]ultural resources are often fragile, andtheir value as a physical representation of thepast and as a source of information abouthuman activities can easily be destroyed bytheft, vandalism, and unauthorized publicvisitation.” When a “resource is used intraditional cultural practices, such as thoseby Native Americans and Pacific Islanders,and disclosure would likely result in adesecration of the property,” then theresource’s location and character should berestricted. The Hualapai THPO has advisedthe FAA that the disclosure of the locationor character of the TCPs and associatedarchaeological sites on the HualapaiReservation would likely result in theft,vandalism, desecration, and unauthorizedpublic visitation of those sites.

3.6.5 Wild and Scenic River Segments inGCNP

GCNP includes 277 miles of the ColoradoRiver, one of the longest and mostchallenging recreational whitewater rivers inthe world, with 160 recognized rapids. TheNPS reports that the Colorado River withinthe GCNP, as well as many of its majortributaries, meets the criteria but has notbeen designated as part of the national wildand scenic rivers system.27 The NPS isrequired by its Management Policies (1988),consistent with applicable legislation, tomanage its lands that meet the criteria forthis designation the same as if they were sodesignated. This is to preserve the resourcespending Congressional action.

3.7 NATURAL RESOURCES

In addition to geologic resources previouslydescribed, the Grand Canyon region is one of

the most ecologically diverse in NorthAmerica. Plant communities vary from cool,moist, subalpine forests and meadowsbetween 8,000 and 9,000 feet elevation, tothose of the hot, dry Great Basin, Sonoran,and Mojave Deserts at elevations as low as1,200 feet. Grand Canyon vegetation isprimarily controlled climatically, “withprecipitation, maximum summertemperatures, and minimum wintertemperatures interacting to distribute plantsinto more or less discrete elevationalzones.”28 As noted in Section 3.1, thesecharacteristics contribute to GCNP’ssignificance as a World Heritage Site.

3.7.1 Wilderness and Wildlife Resourcesin the GCNP

Over one million acres in the park meet thecriteria for wilderness designation as part ofthe National Wilderness PreservationSystem. If combined with over 400,000additional acres of proposed or designatedwilderness contiguous to the park boundary,this area could become one of the largest,primarily desert wilderness areas in theUnited States.29 The NPS is required by itsManagement Policies (1988), consistent withapplicable legislation, to manage its landsthat meet the criteria for this designation thesame as if they were so designated. This isto preserve the resources pendingCongressional action. Because of the diverse geologic, ecological,and climatic conditions within the park, thereare about 1,500 plant species, 290 birdspecies, 90 species of mammals, 60 reptileand amphibian species, and 25 species offish. These include three endangered andfive threatened plant species, and tenendangered and four threatened animalspecies, as well as one experimental

3-16

population (treated as threatened) listed onthe U.S. List of Endangered and ThreatenedSpecies (see Table 3.1).30 Of the listedanimal species, five are avian. Table 3.1 hasbeen updated to reflect recent changes in theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)candidate categorization. The Americanperegrine falcon, shown as endangered in theJune 1999 Draft EA, was recently delisted(64 FR 46541-46558, Aug. 25, 1999). Theendangered California condor is an“experimental population” in the GrandCanyon area, and, as such, is treated as if itwas listed threatened in the area. In additionto the condor, three other threatened speciesare birds. Only two of the endangeredspecies are not ground-living. Theendangered species most likely to be affectedby the proposed SFRA modifications wouldbe the avian species, specifically the MexicanSpotted Owl, Bald Eagle and the Californiacondor. Section 4.9 discusses the potentialfor impacts to these endangered species. Additionally, the Hualapai Tribe hasprovided a listing of the following species ofspecial concern to the Tribe: mule deer,chuckwallas, eagles, hawks, falcons,cottontail rabbits, pronghorn antelope, andDesert bighorn sheep.

3.7.2 Wilderness and Wildlife Resourcesin the Hualapai Reservation

The Hualapai Tribe’s Reservationencompasses nearly one million acres of landin the lower Grand Canyon. Due to thegreat diversity of wildlife habitats on theserugged lands, there is a great diversity ofboth game and non-game wildlife. Desertbighorn sheep, elk, deer, antelope, turkey,quail, and Mourning Doves are all speciesthat are hunted on the Hualapai Reservation.

Non-game wildlife includes numerous smallmammal species, including the endangeredHualapai Mexican Vole, a variety of birds,lizards, snakes, and amphibians.

The Hualapai people have traditionallydepended on some of these wildlife speciesfor their sustenance. Desert bighorn sheep,mule deer, chuckwallas, eagles, hawks,falcons, cottontail rabbits, and pronghornantelope are all species that have been ofgreat importance to the Tribe for food andfor use in ceremonies and continue to be ofspecial concern to the Hualapai peopletoday.

The Colorado River provides a variety ofhabitats for wildlife, fish, and other aquaticorganisms. Included are several endangeredspecies, such as the Southwestern WillowFlycatcher, razorback sucker, and humpbackchub. In 1997, the Southwestern WillowFlycatcher was first documented tosuccessfully nest in the lush riparianvegetation in lower Grand Canyon. Inaddition, over 50 other bird species nest onthe Hualapai Reservation along the ColoradoRiver. In all, the remote nature of theselands offers a great variety and abundance ofwildlife and spectacular wildernessexperiences. Plants of special concern, and ones that havebeen used traditionally by tribal members forfood, medicinal purposes, and in ceremonialactivities are the ponderosa pine, pinyonpine, Goodding’s willow, sage brush, agave,mesquite, and other species known only tothe Hualapai. The primary mineral ofconcern on the Hualapai Reservation is thehematite used for ceremonial activities.Other minerals of importance are, again,known only to the Hualapai people.

3-17

Table 3.1

Species of Special Concern In and Adjacent to Grand Canyon

North Rim Category CategoryNorth Rim TuweepAmerican peregrine falcon delisted American peregrine falcon delistedMexican spotted owl T Bunch flower evening primrose C2Cliff milk vetch C2 Grand Canyon rose C2Grand Canyon rose C2Northern goshawk C2 Corridor TrailsNorth Rim primrose C2 American peregerine falcon delistedBittterweed C3 Southwestern willow flycatcher TCentury plant C3 Roaring Springs prickly poppy C2Dutch primrose C3 Grand Canyon catchfly C2Eriogonum zionus var. coccineum C3 Chuckwalla C2Kaibab beardtongue C3 Mogollon columbine C3Kaibab paintbrush C3 Camissonia specuicola var. specuicola C3Kaibab saber daisy C3 Bigelow onion SRMogollon columbine C3 Our Lord’s candle SRTawny turpentine bush C3Western fairy slipper SR Other Sensitive Species (continued)

Black-footed ferret ESouth Rim California condor EAmerican peregrine falcon delisted Brady pincushion cactus E**Hualapai Mexican vole E Hualapai Mexican vole ESentry milk vetch E Colorado Pike - minnow EMexican spotted owl T Humpback chub E

Bonytail chub EGrand Canyon catchfly C2 Kanab ambersnail EGrand Canyon rose C2 Razorback sucker E

Arizona cliffrose EVirgin River chub EWoundfin EYuma clapper rail EBlack-footed ferret E

Northern goshawk C2 Desert tortoise TPhacelia serrata C2 Bald eagle TNavajo Mountain Mexican vole C2 Little Colorado spinedace TTusayan flameflower C2 Navajo sedge TCamisionia specuicola var. specuicola C3 San Francisco Peaks groundsel TMogollon columbine C3 Silver pincushion cactus TSlender rock cress C3 Welshs milkweed T

Jones’ cycladenia TArizona leather flower C1 ( only) Parish Alkali Grass PETusavan rabbit brush C2 ( only) Fickeisen pincushion cactus C1**Kaibab bladderpod C2 ( only) Coconino Arizona pocket mouse C2

Ditch evening primose C2**Other Sensitive Species Flannelmouth sucker C2Greater Western mastiff-bat C2 Grand Canyon cave pseudoscorpion C2Houserock Valley chisel-toothedkangaroo rat

C2** Yuma Myotis C2

Pediomelum castoreum C2** Long-legged myotis C2Southwestern river otter C2 Lowland leopard frog C2Spotted bat C2** Marble Canyon kangaroo rat C2Whiting dalea C2 Mt. Trumbull beardtongue C2Arizona shrew C2 Occult little brown bat C2Camissonia confertiflora C2 Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat C2Cave myotis C2 Prospect Valley pocket gopher C2Ferruginous hawk C2 Roundtail chub C2

3-18

Table 3.1

Species of Special Concern In and Adjacent to Grand Canyon

North Rim Category CategoryFringed myotis C2 Small-footed myotis C2Loggerhead shrike C2 Western burrowing owl C2Long-eared myotis C2 Yellow-flowered desert poppy C2Mt. Trumbull beardtongue C2 White-faced Ibis C2Mexican Long-tongued bat C2Greater western mastiff bat C2 Speckled Dace C2Allen’s big-eared bat C2 Our Lord’s candle SRBig free-tailed bat C2 Blue curls SR**California leaf-nosed bat C2 Navajo Bridge cactus SR**Grand Canyon flaveria C3 Western red bat SC-SCarex scirpoidea var. curatorum C3 Black-crowned night heron S

** Only known outside the park

E = Endangered (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)T = Threatened (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)PE = Proposed endangered listingSC = Candidate for State’s threatened native wildlife listS = Sensitive (U.S. Forest Service)SR = Salvage restricted (as defined by Arizona Native Plant Law)Category 1, 2, or 3 Candidate Species - taxonomic groups or species being considered for threatened or endangered statusC1 = data exist to support listing; additional data being gathered about precise habitat needs or boundaries for criticalhabitat designations.C2 = data exist to possibly support listing, but substantial data about biological vulnerability and threats are lacking;further research and field study required.C3 = no longer being considered for listing because of extinction, not classified as species, or more abundant or widespreadthan previously believed.

Sources: Sender ([email protected]) (1999, April 29). Endangered Species List. E-mail to Fred Bankert([email protected]); NPS GMP DEIS, March 1995, pg. 136, updated from NPS GMP FEIS, July 1995, pg. 35.

3.7.3 Noise Environment

The Grand Canyon is noted for its rich soundenvironment. Such sounds include rushingwater, the Canyon warbler’s cascading song,the wind whistling through the pines, andthunder and lightning heralding a desertstorm, as well as a sense of quiet. These arein contrast to the sounds of visitors talking,cars moving around the South Rim, touristbuses idling, aircraft flying, motorboatsspeeding up from Hoover Dam, mulesbaying, and so forth. Congress required theNPS to substantially restore “natural quiet”in the GCNP. “Natural Quiet” is a resourcefor which the GCNP was established and

under the NPS Organic Act, as amended, isto be protected.

Ambient noise has been described as thecontinuous background sound environment(such as waves breaking on the shore, or adistant waterfall, or absolute silence in theabsence of any wind or sounds from othersources). The ambient environmentestablishes the quieter moments in a settingand can mask intermittent sources (such asaircraft under some conditions). However,even in loud ambient settings, such as nearwaterfalls, distant sounds such as aircraft cansometimes be clearly audible. The range in ambient sound levels, even fromindigenous sources, can vary considerably

3-19

from one location to another, or from time totime at any given location. At one end of thespectrum is the sound level at the base of apowerful waterfall. At the other end of thespectrum is the near absence of anyperceptible sound at all. These latterconditions may be found in areas devoid offlora or fauna. In the middle is an array ofsound conditions which vary from momentto moment, hour to hour. During non-inclement weather conditions,these variations result from three factors innatural environments:

• Wind (its interaction with foliage,irregular terrain, or the human ear)

• Water (movement in streams, falls, orwave action)

• Animal (near continuous, such as insect;or intermittent, such as birds, coyotes,etc.)

Figure 3-1 illustrates ambient noise withinthe noise study area.

3.8 POPULATION ANDGROWTHCHARACTERISTICS

FAA Order 1050.1D requires that theaffected environment section of anenvironmental assessment “identify, asappropriate, population and growthcharacteristics of the affected area….”31 Inthe context of the proposed action, theappropriate demography to consider includesvisitors to the GCNP and residents ofaffected communities, including NativeAmericans.

Therefore, the following sections describethe expectations of GCNP visitors, where

data is available, indicators of visitor activity,and according to the Hualapai Tribe,expectations of Hualapai Reservationresidents and visitors. Local communitiesare also discussed.

3.8.1 National Park Visitors

Understanding visitor expectations and thenature of visitor activity at GCNP isimportant in assessing aircraft noise impacts.The following discussion attempts toenhance the understanding of visitor typesand park areas where restoring natural quietis of greatest concern, keeping in mind theoverall goal of substantial restoration ofnatural quiet.

Surveyed Visitor Expectations

The NPS surveyed GCNP visitors to rankthe various reasons for their visit to the park.The results indicate the expectations visitorshave for their experience at the park. Theability of the park to fulfill these expectationsis considered by NPS as an important factorin visitor satisfaction, the success of thepark, and the ability to meet missionrequirements.

Throughout the National Park System,approximately 90 percent of visitors rated“enjoy[ing] the natural quiet and sound ofnature” as moderately to extremelyimportant. At GCNP, 90 to 95 percent ofresponses from a mail survey gave naturalquiet a similar rating. Visitor type affectedresponse rates substantially, especiallyamong visitors rating natural quiet as“extremely important.”

Table 3.2 summarizes the approximate valueplaced on natural quiet by different visitortypes at GCNP.32 It should be noted that the

3-20

FAA has concern regarding the subjectivityof visitor survey data for the purposes ofmeasuring aircraft noise impacts.

Table 3.2

Visitors to GCNP Rating Natural Quietas Extremely Important

Visitor Type Rating (approx. %)Frontcountry 35%Summer Backcountry 50%Fall Backcountry 75%River (Motor) 68%River (oar) 88%Source: National Park Service, Report to Congress, Fig. 9-

4.

Survey results also clearly report that thereare many other moderately to extremelyimportant reasons for visits to GCNP.Overall, over 85 percent of visitors reportexercise, learning, and family activity amongthe most important reasons.33

Visitor Activity

Table 3.3 shows recent activity levels byselected visitor types at GCNP. It isimportant to note that most classes of visitoractivity at GCNP are limited or controlled insome way by the NPS to insure that therewill be no derogation or impairment ofresources and values.34

3.8.2 Hualapai Reservation Residentsand Visitors

As noted above, the Hualapai Reservationhas a resident population of approximately1,800 persons. Residents include 1,000enrolled Tribal members and 800 non-enrolled persons (primarily NativeAmerican), with the majority of thispopulation residing at Peach Springs near thesouthern edge of the Reservation. Per capitaincome of Indian residents of the Hualapai

Reservation was $3,630 in 1990. Over 56percent of Indian residents were below thepoverty level in the 1990 Census, and over80 percent were below the U.S. Departmentof Housing and Urban Development’s VeryLow Income Standard in 1991. TheReservation unemployment rate is quite high:56 percent according to 1995 Bureau ofIndian Affairs (BIA) Labor Force data andup to 70 percent seasonally according to theHualapai Tribe’s most recent data.

When Hualapai Reservation residents are inPeach Springs, they can be assumed to havethe noise and visual intrusion expectations ofresidents of similar small residentialcommunities. However, Hualapai tribalmembers have different noise and visualintrusion expectations when they areengaged in ceremonies at traditional culturalsites. Tribal members have strongexpectations of natural quiet at traditionalcultural sites because their traditionalactivities usually require natural quiet. Theyalso have strong expectations of privacyfrom outsiders and a natural viewscape.These are essential to the properperformance of traditional activities attraditional cultural sites.

3.8.3 Local Communities35

Several communities are located near GCNP,with the largest near the South Rim. Thesecommunities are dependent upon GCNP dueto the tourist activity and employmentgenerated by GCNP. GCNP depends uponthese communities for traveler facilities thatdo not exist at the park and for permanentand seasonal employees. The communitieswith the most immediate relevance to GCNPand this study are briefly discussed below.

3-21

Table 3.3

GNCP Visitor Activity Level

Total Visitors to GCNP1993 4,928,5091994 4,702,9891995 4,908,073

Inner Canyon Visitors1995 Overnight Backcountry Hikers* 47,563 people

115,478 user nights1995 Colorado River Users* 23,459 people

168,602 user nights1994 Mule Riders - day trips** 16,440 people1994 Mule Riders - overnight trips** 4,766 people* Numbers of overnight backcountry and river users are strictly limited by permit systems, use

limits and scheduling.** Numbers of mule riders are limited by concession contracts and facility capacities.Note: 1994 numbers were used for mule riders because severe flooding and government shutdowns

in 1995 severely reduced the number of mule riders from normal levels. While overnightbackcountry hikers and river users were affected to some extent by the flooding andshutdowns, the total 1995 numbers for those groups are close to normal, and it was felt thatthose groups were not as adversely affected as mule riders for a number of reasons.

Source: National Park Service.

The South Rim communities are GrandCanyon Village, Tusayan, and Valle. Thesethree communities are located on Arizona64/U.S. 180. These communities are serviceareas for the majority of park visitors andthey also function as residential areas forhouseholds of NPS and private servicebusiness employees. The economies of allthree communities are oriented to servingpark visitors.

Grand Canyon Village provides housing forNPS and concessionaire employees and theirfamilies. The village’s population wasreported to be 1,499 at the time of the 1990census. During mid-summers, the additionof seasonal workers increases the village’spopulation to about 2,100. The State ofArizona projects the year-round populationof Grand Canyon Village to be 1,950 in 2010(Arizona Department of Economic Security

1993a). Based on the current ratios forpermanent-to-seasonal workers, the peaksummertime population is projected to be2,730 in 2010.

Tusayan is an unincorporated communitythree miles from the park’s south entrance.The 1990 population of Tusayan was 555.Tusayan’s population is estimated to increaseto about 1,000 during the peak of the touristseason. The State of Arizona projects theyear-round population of Tusayan to be1,000 in 2010 (Arizona Department ofEconomic Security 1993a). Based on thecurrent ratios for permanent-to-seasonalworkers, the peak summertime populationwould be 1,800 in 2010. Tusayan’s businessdistrict is almost exclusively oriented toserving tourists going to and from the park.In addition, the U.S. Forest Service isproceeding with a land exchange and plansto develop recreational, commercial and

3-22

residential facilities between Tusayan and theGCNP boundary.36

Grand Canyon National Park Airport (seeFigure 1-1), south of Tusayan, is the thirdbusiest airport in Arizona, with 535,000deplanements in 1993. Long-range plansinclude expanding the airport in anticipationof continued growth in air travel.Commercial air tour flights over the GrandCanyon are staged out of the airport area.

Valle is a small, unincorporated communityat the junction of Arizona 64 and 180. The1990 census reported its population to be123; its population increases during thetourist season. No population projectionsare available.

Communities outside the east entrance to thepark include Page, Tuba City, Cameron, andGray Mountain. U.S. 89 links thesecommunities and is traveled by touristsvisiting the park’s North and South Rims.

Much of the East Rim area is on the NavajoReservation. Tuba City and Cameron are onthe Reservation, and Page and GrayMountain are adjacent to it.

The Colorado River and the Grand Canyonserve as barriers that isolate North Rimcommunities from the more populated areasof Coconino County. The North Rimcommunities include the developed NorthRim area within GCNP (including BrightAngel Point), Jacob Lake, Fredonia, Kanab,and Marble Canyon. Visitors to the NorthRim travel U.S. Alternate Route 89 eastthrough Fredonia or west through MarbleCanyon to Jacob Lake. From Jacob Lake,Arizona 67 provides a direct route to thepark’s North Rim.

3.9 RELATIONSHIP OFPROPOSED ACTION TONATIONAL PARKSERVICE GOALS FORGCNP

In its September 1994 report to Congress,the NPS reviewed its mandates, regulations,policies, and plans related to the protectionof natural quiet and the provision of variousvisitor experience opportunities. From thisreview, a statement of management goalsand objectives was developed to furtherassist the NPS in its evaluation of theeffectiveness of SFAR 50-2.

1. Substantially restore natural quiet as anatural resource.

2. Provide recreation opportunities andexperiences for park visitors, consistentwith park policies, where the opportunityfor natural quiet is an importantcomponent.

3. Mitigate any aircraft-related impacts onother natural and cultural resources.

4. Address issues of health, safety andwelfare of on-ground visitors andemployees.

5. Restore and maintain natural quiet byprotecting the wilderness character ofremote areas.

6. Provide primitive recreationopportunities without aircraft intrusionsin most backcountry areas, mostlocations on the river, and at destinationpoints accessed by both.

7. Provide developed recreationopportunities with limited aircraft

3-23

intrusions for visitors at rim developedareas and major front country destinationpoints.

8. Provide for protection of sensitivewildlife habitat areas and culturalresources.

9. Provide for welfare and safety of below-rim, backcountry, and rim visitors.

10. Provide a quality aerial viewingexperience while protecting parkresources (including natural quiet) andminimizing conflicts with other parkvisitors.

As with previous revisions to Subpart U ofPart 93, the proposed actions addressed inthis document would advance many of theseNPS goals without derogating any.Enlarging the SFRA boundary by more thanthree percent responds to Native Americaninterests (specifically, the Hopi and ZuniTribes and the Navajo Nation). Modifyingand increasing flight-free coverage, andremoving and realigning flight corridorsrepresent substantial steps in furthering NPSgoals for GNCP.

3-24

4

4-1

Chapter FourENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This chapter presents the analysis conductedto determine the environmental impacts ofthe No Action alternative and the threeproposed alternatives under consideration formodifying the SFRA in the vicinity of theGCNP, hereafter referred to as the GCNPstudy area. The primary goal of theProposed Action, as implemented throughthe proposed alternative, is to substantiallyrestore natural quiet. The chaptersummarizes the unique conditions underlyingthis analysis. The environmental factorsconsidered are those contained in FAAOrder 1050.1D and the 1995 Report toCongress (NPS Report on Effects of AircraftOverflights on the National Park System,July 1995). The primary environmentalconsideration in the GCNP study area isnoise. The analysis presented hereinindicates that the overall noise environmentfor the entire study area is improved by all ofthe proposed alternatives. The analysis alsodemonstrates that progress towardsrestoration of natural quiet can be achievedwith any of the proposed alternatives;however, without implementation of anoperations limitation, these results arediminished over time. At certainrepresentative locations, predicted noiselevels increase with the proposed alternativeswhen compared to the No Action alternative;however, for the majority of locations, adecrease is observed.

4.1 NOISE

This aircraft noise modeling study wasconducted to predict sound levels from tour

aircraft activity in the study area. The scopeof the study area was defined by the smallestrectangle encompassing the entire SFRAboundary, which includes the area of noiseexposure from the commercial air tourroutes. The total area amounts toapproximately 13,510 square statute miles,145.5 statute miles east-to-west by 92.9statute miles north-to-south. The study areais shown in Figure 3-1.

The purpose of the study was to compare aNo Action alternative and proposedalternatives (which consider commercial airtour routes) with or without theimplementation of commercial air tourlimitations. This comparison is: to identifythe alternative that best accommodates thegoal of substantially restoring natural quiet,with or without commercial air tourlimitations; to examine whether anysignificant adverse effects could be expected;and to disclose any benefits, as well asimpacts, that would result from the federalaction. The analysis was conducted to meetthe following two objectives:

1. Determine whether the Proposed Action,when compared to the No Action andtwo other alternatives, will result in anysignificant noise impacts.

2. Determine the effectiveness of the

Proposed Action, with consideration ofthe No Action alternative and two otheralternatives, in providing substantialrestoration of natural quiet to GCNP.37

4-2

The noise analysis was conducted by theFAA, in conjunction with the Volpe NationalTransportation Systems Center AcousticsFacility (Volpe Center). The FAA and NPSprovided data used in the modeling process.

The analysis estimates aircraft sound levelsby providing values of equivalent soundlevels for a specified time period (LAeqT) andpercentage of time within which aircraft areaudible (%TAT). For definitions of LAeqT and%TAT, refer to Appendix B. These noisemetrics are described in more detail below.

Because of the unique physical and naturalenvironment in the study area, technicalconsiderations were associated with thismodeling task that are not normallyemployed in aircraft noise studies. Thefollowing sections address the technicalissues, discuss the modeling assumptionsused in the analysis, and compare thefindings and results for the four alternatives.

4.1.1 Noise Criteria

Traditionally, the scope of issues to beaddressed relates to proposed airport andairway expansion projects. The analysis ofaircraft noise focuses on communities andparks in the vicinity of airports and militaryairfields. In these situations, interferencewith activities such as education, adversehealth effects, conversation, sleep, listeningto radio or television, and traditionalrecreational activities are the importantissues. The Proposed Action andalternatives under consideration in this DraftSupplemental EA reflect the mandate of theNational Park Overflight Act. The issueshave been expanded and modified here toaddress the statutory requirements applicableto the GCNP. The following explains theseparate criteria used to evaluate the effects

of the Proposed Action and alternativesconsidered in this Supplemental EA.

Significant Noise Impacts for Study Area

The first criterion addresses the significanceof noise impacts on people using thethreshold levels defined in its environmentalpolicies and procedures (FAA Order1050.1D, CHG 1, Attachment 2, p. 1,Policies and Procedures for ConsideringEnvironmental Impacts, June 14, 1999; FAAOrder 5050.4a, paragraph 47e(1)(d)2,Airport Environmental Handbook, October8, 1985). FAA guidance in turn references14 CFR Part 150, Appendix A, Table 1,which is a land use compatibility table thatlists land uses and the noise levels consideredcompatible with each use. The 65 Ldnstandard was established in response toCongress’ direction that the FAA produce areliable methodology for measuring noiseand human response (49 USC 47502).Except for locations inside the GCNP and, asexplained below for traditional culturalproperties (TCPs), the FAA used thesecriteria to evaluate the potential significanceof increases in noise on land uses in the studyarea. Under these guidelines, significantnoise impacts occur if the proposed actioncauses a 1.5 dB Day Night Average SoundLevel (DNL) increase in noise within noisesensitive areas exposed to noise levels at orabove DNL 65 dB. DNL is a 24-hour dayaverage sound level represented by thesymbol Ldn (see FAA Order 1050.1D, CHG1, Attachment 2, p. 1, 14 CFR 150.21(2)(d),August 1992 Federal Interagency Committeeon Noise Report, p. 3-5). For this analysis,the DNL 65 dB criterion is translated into a12 hour sound equivalent average,represented by the symbol LAeq12h. The Ldn

65 dB criterion equates to an LAeq12h of 68dB (See Appendix C). Contours of LAeq12h

and computations of levels at representative

4-3

locations are used to judge this type of noiseimpact. For more detail about how noiseimpacts on people were assessed, includinghow potential to interfere with speech wasdetermined, see Appendix C, pages C-4 andC-5.

FAA relied upon the Part 150 guidelines todetermine the significance of impacts toTCPs to the extent that the land usesspecified in the guidelines bear relevance tothe value, significance, and enjoyment of theresource. Based upon FAA and FederalHighway Administration guidelines, FAAconsidered perceptible noise increases of 3dB and greater to indicate when thePreferred Alternative might adversely affectthe historic characteristics of the TCPsidentified by the Hualapai Tribe duringNHPA Section 106 consultation (see Section4.3 for a more detailed discussion). Usingthe best available data, FAA evaluated thepotential significance of adverse noise andvisual effects by considering: (1) how effectsmay be expected to compare with thosecurrently experienced from existing air tourroutes (i.e. the magnitude of the change ineffects); (2) the activities and valuesassociated with adversely affected HualapaiTCPs; and (3) whether a quiet setting is agenerally recognized feature or attribute ofthat TCP’s significance.

Restoration of Natural Quiet in GCNP

The second criterion examines progresstoward restoring natural quiet. In the Reportto Congress (RTC) for aircraft overflights,the NPS defined “substantial restoration ofnatural quiet” in the GCNP in the followingquantitative way:

...substantial restoration requires that50% or more of the park achieve‘natural quiet’ (i.e., no aircraft audible)

for 75 - 100 percent of the day. [RTCp 182]

This definition establishes severalrequirements for the criterion used to judgerestoration of natural quiet. First, thecriterion must consider aircraft-producedsound in terms of audibility. Second,audibility of aircraft must be examined forthe entire area of the park. Third, audibilityof aircraft needs to be examined throughoutthe day, which is defined as the 12-hourdaytime period of primary visitor activity.

With these considerations, the criterion forjudging progress toward substantialrestoration can be described in the followingterms. Substantial restoration of naturalquiet will be judged to be achieved whentour aircraft are audible for less than 25percent of the day in more than half of thepark area. Hence, to meet the NPSdefinition of substantial restoration, thetotal area of GCNP that experiences audibleaircraft for more than 25 percent of the daymust be less than half (50 percent) of thepark.

In this analysis, the noise metric thatrepresents the percentage of time aircraft areaudible during the 12-hour daytime period ofprimary visitor activity is the %TA12h metric.According to the definitions listed above,when the 25 %TA12h contour (the area where%TA12h > 25 percent) for a particularalternative occupies less than half of the areaof GCNP, then that alternative has achievedsubstantial restoration of natural quiet in theGCNP.

Because the primary impact of aircraft soundin this context is its impact on natural quietwithin the GCNP boundary, progress towardsubstantial restoration of natural quiet(increasing areas experiencing natural quiet)

4-4

is an important indicator of no significantnoise impacts. The FAA and the NPS haverecognized that, although sound levels mayincrease in some areas of the GCNP,progress toward the goal of substantialrestoration is measured on a park-wide basis.

Ambient Sound Levels. For this study, theNPS provided the FAA with A-weightedambient sound levels for the areaencompassed by the GCNP boundary. TheseGCNP ambient levels are shown in Figure 3-1.

The NPS ambient file was based on fieldmeasurements conducted for the NPS inGCNP (HMMH memorandum 295860.05,February 5, 1999—see Appendix D). TheNPS assigned areas of land cover to one ofthree vegetative categories. Thesecategories and their associated A-weightedambient sound levels are: pinyon/juniperwoodland at 20 dB, desert scrub at 20 dB,and sparse conifer forest at 31 dB. Inaddition, the NPS-assigned areas influencedby the sounds of moving water arerepresented by two general categories:Colorado River rapids and water-affected.Within the Colorado River rapids category isa range of acoustic conditions from 25.0 dBto 65.9 dB for distances of 1,950 and 150meters, respectively, from major rapids andfalls. The water-affected category of 38.0dB includes areas with perennial runningwater not included in the Colorado Riverrapids category. Figure 3-1 depicts all thesecategories and their ambient levels.Comparable ambient levels were appliedoutside the GCNP within the study areaaccording to vegetation.

The NPS provided the FAA with two sets ofA-weighted ambient values: L50 and L90.The FAA selected the L50 noise levels, whichis the ambient sound exceeded 50 percent of

the time, to represent the full range ofnatural sound levels (see Appendix D fordetails).

Audibility. Audibility of aircraft dependsupon many factors, such as the level andfrequency spectra of the aircraft sounds, thelevel and frequency of ambient or non-aircraft sounds, and the attentiveness of thelistener. The NPS has adopted the percenttime audible metric for assessing noise anddefining natural quiet in GCNP. This metricis defined as the percentage of time aircraftnoise is audible to a human observer at areceptor location during the daytime periodof primary GCNP visitor activity.

As part of the December 1996 Final EA, theFAA defined the threshold for evaluatingsubstantial restoration of natural quiet assound of up to three decibels above theambient level (see the Final EA Section 4-4).Use of this methodology to estimate thepercent of time that aircraft would be audiblewas upheld in Grand Canyon Air TourCoalition v. FAA, 154 F.3d 455 (DC Cir.1998). To more accurately reflect thepotential for aircraft noise impacts in theGCNP based on the specific characteristicsof the different areas of the Park, the NPSrecently adopted, after publishing notice inthe Federal Register and affording anopportunity for public comment, a noiseevaluation criteria (Change in NoiseEvaluation Methodology for Air TourOperations Over Grand Canyon NationalPark, 64 FR 3969; January 26, 1999 andNotice of Disposition of Public Commentsand Adoption of Final Noise EvaluationMethodology; 64 FR 38006, July 14, 1999).

As set forth by the NPS in its January 26,1999, Federal Register (FR) notice, differentthresholds will be applied to each of twozones in evaluating progress toward

4-5

achieving substantial restoration of naturalquiet at GCNP. The NPS two-zone noiseevaluation system reflects differences invisitor use, geography, facilitiesdevelopment, and regulatory constraints forspecific geographic areas. Figure 4-1depicts the zones within GCNP and the studyarea for which these two noise evaluationthresholds apply.

As explained in the FR Notice, a noticeabilitystandard for time above analysis is used(average A-weighted natural ambient levelplus 3 decibels) for Zone One (about one-third of the Park). This same standard wasused for the entire study area outside of theGCNP in this SEA. In previousenvironmental assessments related to GCNPrulemaking since 1996, the noticeabilitystandard was used singularly for the entireGCNP and study area. Zone One generallyencompasses the Park’s developed areas plusthe Marble Canyon and Sanup regions.

For Zone One, using A-weighted levels, the+3 dB criterion assumes that the frequencycharacteristics of the ambient and the aircraftare relatively similar. The +3 dB sensitivitycriterion is commonly accepted in theacoustics community as the smallest changein sound level audible to the human ear. Forexample, given an ambient A-weightedsound level of 40 dB, the introduction of anaircraft into the ambient environment, whichraises the sound level to 43 dB (a 3 dBincrease), would be noticeable to a personwith average hearing.

For Zone Two (about two-thirds of thePark), an audibility standard (average naturalambient level minus 8 decibels) is used toreflect the results of studies conducted inGCNP for the NPS, which have shown thatindividuals who are actively38 listening canhear aircraft at lower levels than the ambient

A-weighted sound levels (HMMHmemorandum 294530.22, May 15, 1997—see Appendix D). This occurs becauseaircraft sound often contains tones that arenot present in the natural ambient sound.These tones can lead to audibility levelsbelow that of the ambient A-weighted levels.The NPS studies concluded that an activelistener could hear aircraft when their soundlevels were between 8 and 11 dB below theA-weighted ambient.

4.1.2 Noise Modeling

Noise metrics are computed that relate tothese effects, namely Ldn or similar “average”sound level metrics. Also, because of theGCNP goal of achieving substantialrestoration of natural quiet, simply hearingaircraft-produced sound is also considered animpact. Hence, the computer modelingneeds to provide a metric that quantifies howmuch of the time aircraft can be heard.

The Integrated Noise Model (INM) is theFAA’s standard computer methodology forassessing and predicting aircraft noiseimpacts. Its use in regulatory actions isgoverned by FAA Order 1050.1D, “Policiesand Procedures for ConsideringEnvironmental Impacts” under the NEPA.Since 1978, the INM has been widely usedby the aviation community, both nationallyand internationally, to evaluate noise impactsfrom new airports, runways, arrival anddeparture routes, flight procedures, and fleetforecasts. The FAA has continuously refinedand updated the INM’s system capabilities,aircraft noise and performance data, andcomputer technology.

The FAA chose to use INM for the GCNPanalysis because of its: (1) widespreadscientific acceptance, (2) use of methodology

4-6

that conforms to industry and internationalstandards, (3) measurement-derived noiseand performance data, (4) ability to calculatenoise exposure over varying terrainelevation, and (5) adaptability and reliabilityfor assessing a variety of situations, includingGCNP noise impacts. Based on the above,the FAA determined that a modified versionof INM (ver. 5) is an appropriate tool to usefor this analysis.

Specific modifications to the model includethe development of a new “circuit” or round-trip aircraft profile capability to simulate touroperations. This capability allowscombinations of departure, arrival, and levelflight procedures with unlimited altitudechanges, including descents below airportelevation. Additional modifications to themodel are described in the next sections:Propagation Distance and Suppression ofOverground Attenuation Algorithm.

The INM noise calculation methodology andaircraft noise and performance database meetthe standards of the Society of AutomotiveEngineers (SAE), Aerospace InformationReport (AIR) 1845, “Procedure for theCalculation of Airplane Noise in the Vicinityof Airports,” March 1986 and theInternational Civil Aviation Organization(ICAO) Circular 205-AN/1/25,“Recommended Method for ComputingNoise Contours Around Airports,” 1988.

Propagation Distance

An important technical consideration for thestudy area analysis includes accounting forthe actual distance between the aircraft(noise source) and the listener. The abruptelevation changes in the vicinity of thecanyon make this a particular concern. For agiven aircraft overflight altitude, the soundlevel experienced by a person at the Canyon

rim directly below the flight path will behigher than the sound level experienced by aperson several thousand feet lower on a trailin the Inner Canyon. Factors such as terrain,meteorological conditions, and natural andvegetative characteristics are increasinglylikely to alter the propagation andcharacteristics of aircraft sound as thedistance from the receptor to the aircraftincreases. Also, the amount of soundabsorbed or reflected by the ground can alterthe sound levels heard.

Since 1993, the INM has been capable ofcalculating the effects of varying terrainelevation on slant distance from the aircraftto a receptor on the ground. This capabilitywas previously limited to a 1-degree latitudeby 1-degree longitude area of approximately2,300 square statute miles, with the referencepoint at the center of the grid. For thisstudy, the area of terrain analysis is expandedto 4-degrees latitude by 2-degrees longitude.Consequently, changing slant distance fromaircraft to receptor is considered for theentire Grand Canyon noise study area.

Elevation data used in the INM are obtainedfrom Micropath Corporation of Golden,Colorado, and are derived from U.S.Geological Survey information. These three-arc-second elevation data provide a basis fornoise contour calculations and noiseassessments at specific points.

While the adapted INM accurately accountsfor the effect that varying terrain can have onpropagation distance, the model does notaccount for line-of-site blockage between thesource and the observer. For example, aterrain characteristic, such as, anoverhanging ledge that blocks a hiker fromseeing the tour aircraft, could also serve as anoise buffer reducing the noise received bythe observer. While terrain characteristics

4-7

may provide some acoustic buffering effectsthrough line-of-sight blockage, terrain effectsfrom nearby geologic features may alsoreflect noise back into areas experiencingline-of-sight blockage. Thus, the net effectof terrain characteristics is difficult tocompute. Although the INM does not takeinto account the effects of line-of-sightblockage, there are currently no acceptedstandardized practices for modeling line-of-sight blockage with regard to aircraft noiseprediction. The FAA recognizes that themodel could overestimate noise at thoselocations.

Suppression of Overground AttenuationAlgorithm

The lateral attenuation algorithm in theFAA’s Integrated Noise Model is based onSAE AIR 1751, “Prediction Method forLateral Attenuation of Airplane NoiseDuring Takeoff and Landing,” the bestcurrently available technology. As stated inthe AIR, this algorithm is intended forapplication to jet aircraft sound propagatingover flat, acoustically soft terrain, such asgrass, as would be found in the vicinity ofmost major airports. For sites in the vicinityof the Canyon rim, this algorithm isinappropriate since there is effectively noground surface between the source andreceiver for such locations. For the vastmajority of other locations within theCanyon, the ground surface is made up ofacoustically hard rock and packed dirt. Thealgorithms within the AIR are inappropriatein such situations.

Based on the FAA review of the technicalconsiderations affecting this study, the FAAmodified the INM to eliminate computationof lateral overground attenuation, which isoriented toward acoustically soft grassyterrain unlike that found in most of GCNP.

In determining the appropriateness of theabove modifications for this analysis, FAAperformed a check of reasonableness of INMpredictions using data obtained from actualmeasurements in the Grand Canyon (VolpeCenter Letter Report DTS-75-FA465-LR11,August 9, 1994; see Appendix D). Thischeck compared measured and INM-predicted sound exposure levels (SEL,denoted by the symbol LAE) for individualflyover operations and LAeq1h values atGCNP. The results from INM analysis withthe overground attenuation suppressedcorrelate closely with actual measured datain the Canyon.

Other Noise Models

There are a number of aviation noise modelsin use for specialized purposes. Many ofthese models contain different assumptionsand sound propagation algorithms ascompared with the INM.

Of relevance to this analysis is the NPSdevelopment of a computer model designedspecifically for analyzing audibility of aircraftin park environments. The NPS has usedthis model, called the National Park ServiceOverflight Decision Support System(NODSS), in support of its evaluation ofaircraft noise impacts at GCNP. NODSSuses different methodology than thataccepted under FAA guidelines, includingthe calculation of the d´ metric for audibility.Unlike the modified version of the INMdescribed herein, NODSS calculations arefrequency-based (1/3 octave band) toaccount for the tonal nature of the source.The modified version of INM time audiblemetric (Percent Time Audible (%TA12h)using a variable ambient and the +3 dB and –8 dB noise evaluation factors) offers a viable

4-8

comparison of modeled results with NPSnoise predictions and noise criteria.

The current INM, as modified by the FAA,complies with all known standards andrecommended practices for the prediction ofaircraft noise. It produces reasonablyaccurate predictions of aircraft noiseexposure in the vicinity of the GCNP. Whilethere is no evidence that either the INM orthe NPS models are inaccurate, fieldvalidation is an important activity in anymodel development. As part of acomprehensive noise management plan, theFAA and the NPS are planning to conduct anevaluation of respective noise assessmentmethodologies. A study program will bedeveloped that includes a noise measurementprogram at GCNP to support a modelvalidation study, correlation of metrics, andcollection of ambient data.

4.1.3 Aircraft and Operational Data forModeling

This section describes the comparativeanalysis of noise impacts between the NoAction alternative and the proposedalternatives. The proposed alternatives aredescribed in more detail in Section 2.3.

In order to compute sound levels,considerable information was used, includingselection of aircraft types, flight tracks flown(see Figures 2-2 through 2-4), and numbersof operations on each flight track. All inputdata for modeling both the No Actionalternative and the proposed alternatives,including aircraft noise, aircraft operations,and aircraft performance, are discussedbelow. Information for modeling theairspace that results from the proposedalternatives was developed by FAA Officesof Air Traffic and Flight Standards.

Aircraft Types

There are various types of aircraft operatingin the study area, some of which are notincluded directly in the INM database. Insuch instances, official INM equivalent air-craft were used for the current analysis. AnINM equivalent aircraft is an aircraft thatperforms similarly and has similar Noise-Power-Distance (NPD) data as comparedwith the aircraft in actual operation.Approved equivalents are included in theINM database based on aircraft noise andperformance data. The specific INM-equivalent noise data, operational data, andINM-equivalent performance data arediscussed separately in the followingsections.

Aircraft Noise Data

Table 4.1 presents the aircraft types that arecurrently flying in the SFRA and the FAA-approved/INM-equivalent aircraft. Thenoise versus distance data used for INMpredictions were developed by the VolpeCenter based on measurements taken inOctober and November of 1996 at CrowsLanding, California. NPD data werecollected for departure, level flight, andapproach flight conditions. The MD900, arelatively new, state-of-the-art helicopter,was tested at conditions similar to how airtours operate at GCNP.

During the same Crows Landingmeasurements, NPD data were also collectedfor the de Havilland DHC-6-300 Twin Otterequipped with the Raisbeck/Hartzell “quiet”propellers found on all DHC-6 aircraftcurrently operating in the study area. Datawere collected for departure and approachconditions as well as two level flightconditions, tour (flaps 10, 94 knots) and

4-9

Table 4.1

Categories of Aircraft Flying in SFAR

Current Tour Aircraft INM Equivalent AircraftCessna 401/402/421Beechcraft B76Piper 31-325

Beechcraft B58P (BEC58P)

Cessna 206/207Beechcraft A36Cessna 180/182

General Aviation Single-Engine Variable-PitchPropeller(GASEPV)**

de Havilland DHC-6-300 De Havilland DHC-6-300***Cessna 208Cessna 172Cessna 177

General Aviation Single-Engine Fixed-PitchPropeller(GASEPF)*

Bell 206 BBell 206 L

Bell 206L - 0.1 dB†

Aerospatiale 350D A350D + 1.5 dB††McDonnell-Douglas MD600 NOTAR MD900 NOTAR***

* The general aviation, single-engine, fixed-pitch propeller aircraft (GASEPF) is a generic aircraft meant torepresent a composite of all common, single-engine craft, with fixed-pitch propellers not specificallyrepresented in the INM data base.

** The general aviation, single-engine, variable-pitch propeller aircraft (GASEPV) is a generic aircraftmeant to represent a composite of all common, single-engine craft, with variable-pitch propellers notspecifically represented in the INM data base.

*** Noise curves are based on measurement program at Crows Landing, 1996.

† The -0.1 dB adjustment factor contains two corrections. The first corrects the INM noise level data from aspeed of 116 kts (as currently in the HNM database) to a speed of 90 kts, which is considered typical forGCNP tour operations. The second adjusts the Blade Tip Mach number correction for the above speeds.

†† The 1.5 dB adjustment factor contains two corrections. The first corrects the INM noise level data from aspeed of 127.8 kts (as currently in the HNM database) to a speed of 90 kts. The second adjusts the BladeTip Mach number correction for the above speeds.

cruise (flaps retracted, 125 knots) (VolpeCenter memorandum, March 19, 1999).

The helicopters in operation in the vicinity ofGCNP are modeled with three types: theAerospatiale AS-350D, the Bell 206L, andthe MD900. These helicopters and theDHC-6 are modeled in the INM with profilepoints rather than procedure steps. Profilepoints enable the user to set the location,

speed, and thrust exactly. Appendix Dprovides detailed information on helicoptermodeling within INM. Because the INMuses thrust as the independent variable forcalculating source noise, this method ofspecifying thrust allows the user to alsospecify source noise at all points in the flighttrack.39 This is the procedure used in themodeling to exactly coordinate the modeledtour profiles with the noise data collected at

4-10

Crows Landing. See Appendix D forspecifics relative to modeling helicopteroperations within INM for the GrandCanyon.

Operational Data

The operational data were based on an FAA-supplied activity report (the Activity Report)on operations in the SFRA from May 1,1997, to April 30, 1998. The ActivityReport contains data on every operationreported by air tour operators during this 1-year period. These data, presented byaircraft type, tail number, routes, and time ofoperation, are the most accurate and currentoperational information available.

This analysis modeled the air tours andtransportation/repositioning flights insupport of those air tours, as well as mostflights with FAA permission to deviate fromthose air tour routes. In addition, based onavailable data, FAA modeled flights withFAA permission to deviate from those routesthat connected to other air tour routes. Thisanalysis did not model routes designated asweather routes. These routes are only usedduring adverse weather conditions. Use ofthe routes requires commercial air touroperators to file reports of deviation fromthe established air tour route structure. TheFAA estimates that these weather routes areused less than five percent of the time.Therefore, there would be minimalenvironmental impacts.

For the No Action Alternative, totaloperations for future years are based on anFAA-projected annual 3.3 percentcompound growth rate applied to the 1997-1998 operational levels. For the proposedalternatives without operations limitation, thesame methodology was used except forHualapai support operations. For these

operations, the 3.3 percent growth wasapplied to the 1999 Hualapai supportoperations level. The operations modeled inthe operations limitation scenario includeHualapai support operations that areincreased at 3.3 percent from 1999 levels.This data for Hualapai support operationswas provided during consultation followingissuance of the Draft SEA.

The summary of the types of operations foreach of the study years is given in Table 4.2for the No Action alternative and in Table4.3 for the three commercial air tour routeproposed alternatives. The INM categorizeseach operation as an arrival, a departure, acircuit, or an overflight. Detailed operationsdata is provided in Appendix E.

Arrivals are flights that land at GrandCanyon National Park Airport (GCN) afterhaving passed through some portion of theSFRA. Departures are flights which take offfrom GCN, enter the SFRA, and do notreturn to GCN. Circuits are flights whichtakeoff from GCN, enter the SFRA, andreturn to land at GCN. Overflights areflights that pass through some portion of theSFRA, but never land or take off at GCN.

It should be noted that the number of arrivalsand departures at GCN, although close, arenot equal. This is because operations to andfrom the Airport that do not enter the SFRAare not counted. For example, consider aflight that departs Las Vegas, enters theSFRA, lands at GCN, and then departs GCNand heads directly south to Valle Airport(due south of GCN). This departure fromGCN is not counted in the present studysince this leg of the flight is conductedentirely outside of the SFRA. It should alsobe noted that the total number of operationsfor the No Action Alternative with continuedgrowth is less than the Preferred Alternative

4-11

with continued growth in 2000, 2003 and2008. This results from use of moreaccurate baseline data in modeling year 2000air tour operations providing support to theHualapai Tribe. In the Final SEA, noiseimpacts for the Preferred Alternative weremodeled using 1999 operations values for airtour operations under contract with theHualapai Tribe. The 1997-1998 operations

values used for other commercial air touroperations were not available for theHualapai support operations because therunway at Grand Canyon West Airport wasnot paved until November 1997. 1999values exceed by 30% the 1997-1998 valuesused to model the Hualapai operations in theNo Action Alternative.

Table 4.2

Summary of SFAR Operational Activitiesas a Function of Type of Operation, No Action Alternative

YearType of Operation1

(Annual Average Day) 1998 2000 2003 2008

Approaches2 80.13 85.51 94.25 110.87

Departures3 70.35 75.07 82.75 97.33

Circuits4 110.10 117.49 129.51 152.33

Overflights5 61.20 65.31 71.99 84.67

Total 321.78 343.37 378.50 445.21

Table 4.3

Summary of SFAR Operational Activities as a Function of Type of Operation,for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 with Commercial Air Tour Limitations and Continued Growth

Year

Type of Operation1

(Annual Average Day) 1998

2000Commercial

Air TourLimitations6

2000Growth

2003Commercial


2003Growth

2008Commercial


2008Growth

Approaches2 80.11 80.11 87.33 80.11 96.22 80.11 113.22

Departures3 70.28 70.28 75.00 70.28 82.64 70.28 97.24

Circuits4 111.44 111.44 119.49 111.44 131.71 111.44 154.95

Overflights5 59.95 71.76 74.50 74.96 82.08 81.04 96.59

Total 321.78 333.59 356.32 336.79 392.65 342.88 461.99

4-12

Notes for Tables 4.2 and 4.3:

1 The average annual-day operations as a function of type of operation are calculated from the 1997-1998Activity Report.

2 An approach is defined as an activity in which an aircraft that is in flight enters into the SFRA from an originoutside the GCNP study area (e.g., Las Vegas, NV, approaches, and lands at GCN).

3 A departure is an activity in which an aircraft departs from GCN, enters the SFRA, and continues on in flightto a destination outside of the GCNP study area.

4 A circuit is an activity in the SFRA in which an aircraft departs from GCN, continues on in flight with variouschanges in performance and spatial position, approaches, and lands at GCN.

5 An overflight is an activity in the SFRA in which an aircraft that is already in flight continues on in flight, anddoes not approach and land at GCN.

6 The Operations Limitation column includes growth in Hualapai support operations that are not subject to anoperations limitation.

The INM’s method of categorizing flightsdiffers from both the way operations aretypically counted by Air Traffic Control(ATC) at GCN and from the way operationsare counted in the Activity Report.40

Supplemental Analysis

As part of this study, three supplementalanalyses were conducted. Thesesupplemental analyses examined theprojected noise environment at the GrandCanyon in three special cases. These casesincluded typical days for the summer andshoulder seasons as well as a peak day forthe summer season. The FAA determinedthat the peak hour analysis addressed in theDraft SEA was not a realistic scenario ascomputed. These supplemental analyses arediscussed in Appendix F.

In accordance with FAA guidelines, aircraftnoise exposure must be established in termsof yearly day/night sound level (DNL). Theformula to calculate yearly DNL includesspecific aircraft noise levels combined withthe annual average daily operations of thoseaircraft. The FAA recognizes that seasonalfluctuation in visitors to the park (by air andby land) would mean that the number of airtour operations on any particular day could

be substantially higher or lower than theannual average.

The FAA guidelines include the provisionthat the DNL analysis may optionally besupplemented on a case-by-case basis tocharacterize specific noise effects. Thesupplemental noise analysis must be tailoredto enhance the public’s understanding ofboth the noise impacts and the pertinent factssurrounding the changes. In this context, thesupplemental analysis is intended to conveythe relationship between noise exposure anddaily air tour operations.

Flight Track Assignments

Each of the proposed alternatives has fewerflight tracks than the No Action (existing)alternative. Operations on flight tracks in theNo Action alternative that do not exist in theproposed alternatives have been moved tosimilar tracks in the proposed alternatives.Tracks that no longer exist in the proposedalternatives are referred to as ‘terminated’tracks. Fixed-wing and helicopter operationson terminated tracks originating and endingat GCN, except those which pass throughthe middle of the Canyon, have been movedto either the new Black-1 or the new Green-1, respectively. Operations on terminatedtracks passing through the middle of the

4-13

Canyon, primarily the old Blue-1, have beenmoved so that the northern route receives 37percent and the southern route receives 63percent. These percentages are based oninformation supplied by operators and areconsistent with current business practices.Operations on terminated tracks over thewest end of GCNP have been moved toeither the new Blue-2 or the new Green-4.

Simplifying assumptions were used to modelhelicopter operations flown under contract tothe Hualapai Tribe. These assumptionsresult in the appearance of a “spike” in the20 dB LAeq12h contour in Figure 4-5 betweenRepresentative Locations 25 (Granite Gorge)and 26 (Grand Canyon West). Theseoperations descend below the rim of theCanyon and land. However, due to lack ofdata for traffic patterns flown by thesehelicopters when landing, they were modeledas if they exited the SFRA to the southwestat 5,000 feet MSL abeam Bat Cave.

Flight operations are modeled as standardarrivals and departures from the existing andproposed Green-4 routes.

Profiles and Performance Data

In developing the airspace for the No Actionand the proposed alternatives, air traffic andoperator data were used to assign altitudesfor each unique flight track. On BlueDirect/Blue Direct North for the proposedalternatives, 85 percent of twin engineaircraft operations were assigned to thehigher altitude, and the remaining 15 percentwere assigned to the lower altitude. Allsingle engine aircraft were assigned to thelower altitude on Blue Direct/Blue DirectNorth. For Proposed Alternative 4, allaircraft use the 85/15 percent altitudeassignment on both Blue Direct North and

Blue Direct South. These assignments arebased on operator inputs.

INM standard takeoff and approachprocedures were assumed for all departure,approach, and circuit operations at GCN.Once aloft, changing-altitude flight profileswere developed using the INM profilegenerator,41 with the specific altitudes at thestart and end of a flight-path segment asinput. The generator was, in turn, used tocompute performance and positioninformation for each segment, includingdistance from start of profile, altitude, speed,and thrust. Similarly, performance andposition information associated with levelflight-track segments was also computedusing the INM profile generator.42

4.1.4 Model Output

All modeling was performed for the NoAction, Proposed Action, and two otheralternatives described in Chapter Two. Twotypes of analyses were performed with theINM: a contour analysis and a representativelocation analysis. All modeling output isreported for an average annual day.

Contours

For the purposes of INM, a set of contoursconsists of lines of constant noise or timeexposure that tend to decrease withincreasing distance from an airport or flighttrack. For the current study area analysis,both LAeq12h and %TA12h contours werecomputed for the study area.

In determining areas encompassed byspecific sound level contours, two types ofanalyses were performed, a wide-areaanalysis and a GCNP boundary analysis. Thewide-area analysis included the entire case

4-14

analysis window in computing area valuesencompassed by specific contour levels (a13,510 square statute mile area). The GCNPboundary analysis included only the areaencompassed by the GCNP boundary (a1,886.79 square statute mile area).

LAeq12h contours were computed for levelsranging from 20 to 60 dB. %TA12h contourswere computed for 25 percent. These%TA12h contours were used in the evaluationof the NPS goal for restoration of naturalquiet.

Representative Locations

A total of 72 individual points wereconsidered in the analysis as representativeof noise sensitive areas within the study area

(e.g., attraction sites and sensitiveresources). Both LAeq12h and %TA12h werecomputed for each representative location.The representative locations are presented inTables 4.4 through 4.7. These tablesprovide a descriptive name, a 6-characteridentifier, a latitude, a longitude, and anelevation above mean sea level (MSL). Thefour tables present the location points inquadrants of the study area. The quadrantsare defined as east or west of GCN and northor south of the Colorado River.

Figure 4-2 displays the individual pointlocations. These point locations are overlaidon the study area map.

Table 4.4

Representative Point Locations in the Grand Canyon VicinityNorth of Colorado River, West of GCNP Airport

Location Latitude LongitudeElevation

(feet MSL)1 NPS Admin Site (ADMIN) 36-08-00.000N 113-31-30.000W 61022 Andrus Canyon (ANDRUS) 35-13-00.000N 113-25-00.000W 42043 Bass Camp (BASCMP) 36-14-14.091N 112-20-39.845W 22014 Bat Cave (BATCAV) 36-02-52.800N 113-48-10.200W 23145 Burnt Springs Canyon (BRNTSP) 35-57-58.379N 113-44-38.955W 13596 Castle Peak (CASTLE) 36-11-00.000N 113-34-00.000W 63977 Kanab Point (KANAPT) 36-24-15.875N 112-39-04.927W 54498 Kelly Point (KELLPT) 35-50-06.186N 113-28-10.443W 60009 Mt. Dellenbaugh (MTDELL) 36-06-31.800N 113-32-24.000W 675010 Point Sublime (PTSUBL) 36-11-54.012N 112-14-59.113W 718711 Sanup (SANUP) 36-07-17.065N 113-49-15.706W 439012 Separation Canyon at Colorado River

(SCCORV)35-50-00.000N 113-34-00.000W 2165

13 Separation Canyon (SEPARC) 35-49-24.232N 113-34-12.258W 140114 Shivwitz Fire Camp SHWZFC 36-07-00.00N 113-32-30.000W 647915 Stone Creek (STONCK) 36-20-47.881N 112-27-13.878W 200816 Suicide Point (SUIPNT) 36-00-15.000N 113-32-09.600W 597917 Toroweap Overlook (TOROWP) 36-12-48.603N 113-03-29.722W 414018 Tower of Ra (TOWER) 36-08-28.200N 112-12-10.200W 626919 Twin Point (TWINPT) 35-59-49.800N 113-37-40.200W 605220 Upper Deer Creek (UPDRCK) 36-23-37.457N 112-30-21.754W 240621 West End (WESEND) 36-07-00.000N 113-58-27.000W 1014

4-15

Table 4.5

Representative Point Locations in the Grand Canyon VicinitySouth of Colorado River, West of GCNP Airport


(feet MSL)22 Coyote Canyon (COYCAN) 36-12-42.000N 112-46-09.000W 467723 Diamond Creek (DIACRK) 35-45-57.000N 113-22-16.800W 160124 The Dome (DOME) 36-13-00.000N 112-50-00.000W 579725 Granite Gorge (GRAGOR) 36-02-00.000N 113-52-00.000W 207626 Grand Canyon West (GCWEST) 35-59-18.600N 113-48-35.400W 474827 Granite Park (GRNTPK) 35-57-53.400N 113-19-00.000W 160328 Gus Plateau (GUSPLT) 36-00-01.800N 113-17-22.500W 657329 Havasu Point (HAVAPT) 36-18-33.059N 112-45-44.203W 180930 Havatagvitch Canyon (HAVCAN) 36-08-01.800N 112-34-18.000W 419931 Hermit Basin (HBASIN) 36-03-21.827N 112-13-22.679W 517532 Horse Flat Canyon (HFCAN) 35-51-41.400N 113-46-31.200W 293433 Meriwhitca (MERIWH) 35-46-31.800N 113-42-00.000W 402834 Mohawk Canyon (MOHAWK) 36-08-00.000N 112-59-00.000W 399935 Mohawk Canyon (MOHCAN) 36-09-52.800N 112-59-00.000W 339836 Mount Sinyala (MTSINY) 36-18-00.000N 112-42-19.800W 500737 National Canyon (NATCAN ) 36-09-59.400N 112-54-21.600W 438838 Jackson Canyon (JCKCAN/NONAME) 35-52-00.000N 113-43-00.000W 206039 Parashant Wash (PARWAS) 36-05-40.200N 113-19-19.800W 170340 Pumpkin Springs (PMPKIN) 35-53-42.000N 113-19-00.000W 180141 Prospect Canyon (PROCAN) 36-09-52.800N 113-05-00.000W 407442 Prospect Canyon (PRSPCT) 36-07-00.000N 113-05-00.000W 462243 Peach Spring Canyon North (PSCNNO) 35-45-00.000N 113-20-00.000W 334344 Peach Spring Canyon South (PSCNSO) 35-37-00.000N 113-25-00.000W 380245 Quartermaster Point (QMPNT) 35-56-30.000N 113-47-30.000W 220146 The Ranch (RANCH) 36-01-27.000N 112-17-54.000W 620047 Spencer/Meriwhitica Canyons (SCMCIG) 35-47-00.000N 113-34-00.000W 450448 South Supai Canyon (SOSUPC) 36-00-19.200N 112-31-16.200W 440349 Spencer Canyon (SPENCA) 35-47-15.000N 113-38-45.000W 279050 Supai Village (SUPVIL) 36-14-12.338N 112-41-18.816W 321051 Three Springs Rapids (THRSPR) 35-52-30.000N 113-1-36.000W 196852 Whitmore Rapids (WHTRAP) 36-08-20.357N 113-12-11.219W 168053 96 Mile Camp (96MILE) 36-06-27.645N 112-13-30.800W 2401

4-16

Table 4.6

Representative Point Locations in the Grand Canyon VicinityNorth of Colorado River, East of GCNP Airport


(feet MSL)54 The Basin (BASIN) 36-15-42.203N 112-06-10.941W 819855 Bright Angel Point (BRTANG) 36-11-53.011N 112-03-06.380W 815156 Cape Royal (CAPROY) 36-07-23.034N 111-56-54.549W 762157 Cliff Dwellers Lodge (CLDWEL) 36-44-38.400N 111-45-19.800W 421458 Marble Canyon Dam Site (MARBDM) 36-24-31.388N 111-52-21.588W 300759 Nankoweap Mesa (NANMES) 36-16-00.000N 111-51-28.800W 539160 North Canyon (NOCANY) 36-37-00.000N 111-46-30.000W 445761 Point Imperial (PTIMPL) 36-16-44.711N 111-58-39.584W 742562 Saddle Mountain (SADMTN) 36-18-43.800N 111-56-57.600W 717163 South Canyon (SOCAN) 36-30-20.000N 111-51-50.000W 519664 Temple Butte (TEMBUT) 36-10-01.200N 111-49-28.200W 3749

Table 4.7

Representative Point Locations in the Grand Canyon VicinitySouth of Colorado River, East of GCNP Airport


(feet MSL)65 Cedar Ridge (CEDRIG) 36-03-50.889N 112-05-19.856W 601366 Lipan Point (LIPAN) 36-01-55.919N 111-51-12.981W 706367 Little Colorado (LITCOL) 36-11-25.200N 111-43-36.000W 530668 Little Colorado River (LTCORV) 36-11-45.230N 111-48-01.162W 291569 Nankoweap at river (NANRIV) 36-18-26.819N 111-51-27.960W 325470 Ten X Meadow (TENMED) 35-56-03.000N 112-03-36.000W 690671 Zuni Alpha (ZUNALF) 35-58-19.800N 111-53-21.000W 685972 Zuni Charlie (ZUNCHR) 36-07-30.000N 111-47-35.000W 5337

4-17

4.1.5 Noise Modeling Results

Traditional FAA noise analyses focus on theeffects of a particular action on Ldn contours,in particular the 65 dB Ldn contour. Asstated previously, the current analysis hasfocused on LAeq12h instead of Ldn due to thelimited hours of aircraft operations and thetypical period of daytime visitor activity atGCNP. Tables 4.8 and 4.9 present acomparison of areas covered by the LAeq12h

contours (20 to 60 dB) for the year 2003.Although multiple years were analyzed, theyear 2003 results are presented in thissection to provide interim results. Detailedresults for 1998, 2000 and 2008 are providedin Appendix A. Figure 4-3 depicts theLAeq12h contours (20 to 60 dB) for the 1998No Action condition. Figure 4-4 depicts theLAeq12h contours (20 to 60 dB) for the 2003No Action condition. Appendix A containsthe figures of the contours for the otheryears and the alternatives. Figure 4-5illustrates the three alternatives consideredfor the year 2003 with commercial air tourlimitations implemented compared to the2003 No Action alternative. Figure 4-6illustrates the three alternatives consideredfor the year 2003 with continued growthcompared to the 2003 No Action alternative.

Tables 4.10 and 11 present the percentageof GCNP restored to natural quiet, asdefined in Section 4.1.1. Tables 4.12 and4.13 present a comparison of areas coveredby the 25 percent TA12h contours for the year2003. Additional years are detailed inAppendix A. These tables compare contourareas in square statute miles for the NoAction and the three proposed alternatives.The comparisons are presented in terms ofboth a wide-area analysis and an analysisrestricted to the GCNP boundary. Figure 4-7 depicts the TA12h contour for the 1998 No

Action condition. Figure 4-8 depicts theTA12h contours for the 2003 No Actioncondition. Appendix A contains the figuresof the contours for the other years and thealternatives. Figure 4-9 illustrates the TA12h

contours for the three alternatives consideredfor the year 2003 with commercial air tourlimitations implemented compared to the2003 No Action alternative.

Figure 4-10 illustrates the TA12h contoursfor the three alternatives considered for theyear 2003 with continued growth comparedto the 2003 No Action alternative.

LAeq12h Analysis

For the three proposed alternatives, withcommercial air tour limitations or withcontinued growth, there are no regions in thestudy area that have an LAeq12h equal to orgreater than 65 dB. Therefore, none of theproposed alternatives compared to the NoAction alternative show a significant impactbased on the criteria found in FAA Order1050.1D. This finding is also true for thesupplemental noise analysis as shown inAppendix F.

TA12h (25 %) Analysis

Each of the proposed alternatives, with orwithout commercial air tour limitations, willreduce the time in which aircraft are audiblefor the general study area compared to theNo Action alternative. Each of the proposedalternatives reduces the time in which aircraftare audible within the GCNP boundary.Although the proposed alternatives reducethe time in which aircraft are audible inGCNP, natural quiet is not substantiallyrestored with any of the proposedalternatives or with the No Actionalternative.

4-18

Table 4.8

Square Mile Area Covered by LAeq12h Contours (20-60) Considering Commercial Air Tour Limitations2003

No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

AnalysisContour

Level (dB) Sq. Mi. Sq. Mi.% Change inSq. Mi. Area Sq. Mi.

% Change inSq. Mi. Area Sq. Mi.

% Change inSq. Mi. Area

20 4723.79 3647.41 -22.79 3807.74 -19.39 4247.69 -10.08W 30 2169.59 1628.08 -24.96 1684.51 -22.36 1770.05 -18.42I 40 604.24 444.77 -26.39 425.99 -29.50 426.75 -29.37D 50 33.01 30.75 -6.85 30.82 -6.63 30.76 -6.82E 60 3.65 3.57 -2.19 3.63 -0.55 3.54 -3.01

20 1619.78 1093.04 -32.52 1093.29 -32.50 1183.61 -26.93G 30 701.92 556.14 -20.77 519.76 -25.95 558.31 -20.46C 40 159.72 106.54 -33.30 93.57 -41.42 113.47 -28.96N 50 5.54 2.41 -56.50 2.41 -56.50 2.51 -54.69P 60 0.05 0 -100.00 0 -100.00 0 -100.00

Table 4.9

Square Mile Area Covered by LAeq12h Contours (20-60) Considering Continued Growth2003


AnalysisContour

Level (dB) Sq. Mi. Sq. Mi.% Change inSq. Mi. Area Sq. Mi.



20 4723.79 3851.67 -18.46 4008.99 -15.13 4490.34 -4.94W 30 2169.59 1727.7 -20.37 1804.34 -16.83 1898.17 -12.51I 40 604.24 516.43 -14.53 502.56 -16.83 501.92 -16.93D 50 33.01 35.5 7.54 35.54 +7.66 35.60 +7.85E 60 3.65 4.05 10.96 4.12 +12.88 4.01 +9.86

20 1619.78 1129.98 -30.24 1130.72 -30.19 1224.61 -24.40G 30 701.92 589.89 -15.96 559.87 -20.24 599.35 -14.61C 40 159.72 129.26 -19.07 112.15 -29.78 135.58 -15.11N 50 5.54 3.53 -36.28 3.52 -36.46 3.67 -33.75P 60 0.05 0 -100.00 0 -100.00 0 -100.00

Table 4.10

Percentage of Park Restored to Natural Quiet Considering Commercial Air Tour LimitationsAverage Annual Day

Year No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 41998 32.0 43.6 44.1 43.82000 30.6 43.6 44.1 43.72003 28.5 43.6 44.0 43.72008 25.3 43.5 44.0 43.7

4-19

Table 4.11

Percentage of Park Restored to Natural Quiet Considering Continued Growth, Average Annual Day

Year No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 41998 32.0 43.6 44.0 43.72000 30.6 41.4 41.7 40.92003 28.5 37.9 38.0 36.72008 25.3 32.7 31.9 29.5

Table 4.12

Square Mile Area Where %TA12h is Greater Than 25% Considering Commercial Air Tour Limitations2003


Analysis Sq. Mi. Sq. Mi.% Change inSq. Mi. Area Sq. Mi.



WIDE 3164.92 2534.38 -19.92 2602.68 -17.76 2400.60 -24.15GCNP 1348.97 1064.95 -21.05 1055.83 -21.73 1062.48 -21.24

Table 4.13

Square Mile Area Where %TA12h is Greater Than 25% Considering Continued Growth2003





WIDE 3164.92 2798.39 -11.58 2908.43 -8.10 2802.70 -11.44GCNP 1348.97 1171.19 -13.18 1169.51 -13.30 1195.26 -11.39

For example, analysis of the three proposedalternatives indicates that modifications tothe airspace will restore natural quiet to alevel of approximately 44 percent of theGCNP in 2000. By contrast, the No Actionalternative results in approximately 31percent natural quiet in the GCNP.

The benefits of all of the proposedalternatives erode over time if commercial airtours increase, as shown in the analysis usinga 3.3 percent expected growth rate.Operational growth through the year 2008for the No Action alternative reduces thelevel of natural quiet to approximately 25

percent of the GCNP. A similar effect in2008 is shown for the Preferred Alternative,where the level of natural quiet falls toapproximately 33 percent of the GCNP.Appendix A provides detailed informationfor the year 2008.

The benefits of the commercial air tourproposed alternatives are primarily due tothe elimination of aircraft operations near themid-canyon region of the GCNP. In the NoAction alternative, aircraft operations onBlue-1 heavily influence the mid-canyonnoise environment. In all the proposedalternatives, operations on Blue-1 were

4-20

replaced by operations on both BlueDirect/Blue Direct North and Blue DirectSouth/Blue South Direct. For this study, 37percent of the existing Blue-1 operationswere assigned to Blue Direct/Blue DirectNorth, 63 percent to Blue Direct South/BlueSouth Direct. Moving these operations fromthe mid-canyon to the south increased theareas of GCNP where natural quiet has beenrestored.

Representative Location Analysis

For each of the study years and the proposedalternatives, the 72 representative locationsall have LAeq12h levels less than 68 dB.Therefore, none of the representativelocations show a significant impact based onthe criteria found in FAA Order 1050.1D.

For the majority of the representativelocations, each of the proposed alternativesresults in a decrease in both the LAeq12h andthe %TA12h levels with commercial air tourlimitations or continued growth.

The summary of the %TA12h improvementsis shown in Tables 4.14 and 4.15. TheLAeq12h improvements are shown in Tables4.16 and 4.17. The left side of the Tablespresents the percentage of sites where thenoise levels either decrease or remain thesame going from the No Action alternativeto the particular alternative. The right siderepresents the arithmetic average of thedifferences, taking into account all sites,between the No Action alternative and eachof the proposed alternatives.

For example, in the year 2000, Alternative 2would provide an improvement or no changein %TA12h at 56 of the 72 sites (78 percent)and an improvement or no change in LAeq12h

at 52 of the 72 sites (72 percent) consideringcontinued growth. The average increase intime when aircraft are not audible, takinginto account all sites is approximately 30minutes considering continued growth. Forthis example, the LAeq12h noise level improvesan average of 6.2 dB at the 72 sitesconsidering continued growth.

Table 4.14

Improvements in Percent Time Audible Considering Commercial Air Tour Limitations

Percent Time Audible (%TA12h )

Percent of Sites ImprovedOverall Average Improvement (minutes per 12

hour analysis period)Year 1998 2000 2003 2008 1998 2000 2003 2008

Alternative 2(1) 79.2% 81.9% 84.7% 90.3% 29.1 37.8 54.5 83.7Alternative 3(1) 80.6% 81.9% 88.9% 95.8% 29.6 38.4 55.1 84.2Alternative 4(1) 66.7% 70.8% 75.0% 80.6% 24.4 33.2 49.8 79.0

(1) Improvements are all relative to the No Action alternative (Alternative 1).

4-21

Table 4.15

Improvements in Percent Time Audible Considering Continued Growth

Percent Time Audible (%TA12h )

Percent of Sites ImprovedOverall Average Improvement (minutes per 12

hour analysis period)Year 1998 2000 2003 2008 1998 2000 2003 2008

Alternative 2(1) 79.2% 77.8 76.4 79.2 29.1 27.9 30.6 36.3Alternative 3(1) 80.6% 77.8 76.4 79.2 29.6 28.6 31.4 37.2Alternative 4(1) 66.7% 66.7 65.3 68.1 24.4 22.7 24.9 29.2


Table 4.16

Improvements in Equivalent Sound Level Considering Commercial Air Tour Limitations

Equivalent Sound Level (LAeq12h )Percent of Sites Improved Overall Average Improvement (dB)

Year 1998 2000 2003 2008 1998 2000 2003 2008Alternative 2(1) 70.8% 77.8% 79.2% 81.9% 5.9 6.5 6.9 7.6Alternative 3(1) 72.2% 73.6% 79.2% 79.2% 6.1 6.3 6.8 7.4Alternative 4(1) 69.4% 72.2% 75.0% 76.4% 5.3 5.6 6.0 6.7


Table 4.17

Improvements in Equivalent Sound Level Considering Continued Growth

Equivalent Sound Level (LAeq12h )Percent of Sites Improved Overall Average Improvement (dB)

Year 1998 2000 2003 2008 1998 2000 2003 2008Alternative 2(1) 70.8% 72.2 72.2 72.2 5.9 6.2 6.2 6.2Alternative 3(1) 72.2% 72.2 72.2 72.2 6.1 6.0 6.0 6.0Alternative 4(1) 69.4% 69.4 69.4 69.4 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3


4-22

Appendix A contains the complete %TA12h

and LAeq12h data for each of the 72representative locations. The tables in thisappendix present the data for the particularmetric at each representative location foreach proposed alternative and also comparethe proposed alternatives with the No Actionalternative. Examination of these data showthat the majority of the sites that exhibit thelargest increase in noise levels are under theproposed Blue Direct South routealternative, regardless of continued growthor commercial air tour limitationsalternatives (e.g., SUIPNT). Those sites thatexhibit a decrease in noise tend to be mid-Canyon sites (HAVCAN, MTSINY,PROCAN). This is expected since one ofthe major changes in the airspace is theelimination of the Blue-1 route (through themid-canyon), and the switch of the majorityof these operations to Blue Direct South.Note that the site with the largest increase innoise under the Preferred Alternative isGUSPLAT. This increase in noise is alsodue to the additional flights on Blue DirectSouth.

Potential impacts to locations outside of theGCNP were considered relative to standardnoise level criteria as described in FAR Part150 Table 1, unless TCPs were identifiedthrough consultation with individual NativeAmerican Tribes. Impacts on TCPs havebeen evaluated and FAA has found that theproposed action (Preferred Alternative) willhave No Adverse Effect on any TCPsidentified by any Tribe or Nation, except theHualapai Tribe. Regarding the HualapaiTribe, FAA has determined that theundertaking adversely affects at least someof the TCPs identified by the Hualapai Tribeand THPO. Therefore, FAA, NPS, theAdvisory Council on Historic Preservation,the Hualapai Tribe and Hualapai TribalHistoric Preservation Officer have entered

into a Programmatic Agreement (PA). ThePA is discussed in detail in Section 4.2.

4.1.6 Conclusions

The analysis presented here indicates that,within the study area as shown in Figure 3-1,the noise environment as a whole isimproved by implementation of the proposedaction with any of the proposed alternatives,with or without an operations limitation orcontinued growth. The expected overallimprovement is not limited to the immediatevicinity of GCNP, but extends beyond theboundaries of GCNP to include the entirestudy area. Both the LAeq12h and the TA12h

contours support these conclusions.

Although the three proposed alternatives donot achieve substantial restoration of naturalquiet to GCNP, they represent a tangibleimprovement over the No Action alternative.

4.2 HISTORIC,ARCHAEOLOGICAL, ANDCULTURAL RESOURCES

Various statutes and Executive Ordersgovern cultural resources. In addition toNEPA and the Department of TransportationAct of 1966, as recodified, which requireconsideration of cultural resources thefollowing are most relevant. The NationalHistoric Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966,as amended, establishes measures tocoordinate Federal actions affectingproperties included in or eligible for inclusionin the National Register of Historic Places.The Archaeological and HistoricPreservation Act of 1974 provides for thesurvey and preservation of significantcultural resources that may be harmed due toa Federal project. Executive Order 13007,

4-23

Indian Sacred Sites, requires Federalagencies to accommodate access and use ofsacred sites, and to avoid adverse effects tothe physical integrity of such sacred siteslocated on Federal land or land underFederal jurisdiction.

Sec. 110 of the NHPA requires Federalagencies to consult with State HistoricPreservation Officers (SHPO), TribalHistoric Preservation Officers (THPO),tribes, and interested parties concerningproposed Federal actions that may affectproperties included in or eligible for inclusionin the National Register of Historic Places(National Register). The National Registerincludes sites and structures that range fromlocal to national importance. These caninclude, but are not limited to, traditionalcultural properties (TCP) as described inNPS National Register Bulletin 38:Guidelines for Evaluating and DocumentingTraditional Cultural Properties. Section 110requires agencies to comply with Section106, which governs consultation. Theregulations governing consultation are 36CFR 800. Section 304 governsconfidentiality.

The NHPA and related laws and regulationsalso require specific consideration of impactson World Heritage Sites, National HistoricLandmarks and National Natural Landmarksestablished under the Historic Sites Act of1935. GCNP was designated a NationalNatural Landmark and, later, a WorldHeritage Site for its natural features, culturalresources and continuing relationship toNative American culture to the present day.Consultation under these provisions occurredthrough the Section 106 process.

Pursuant to the NHPA, an initial review ofproperties on or eligible for inclusion in theNational Register which are within the area

of potential effect (APE) of the undertakingwas conducted (see Sections 3.6.3 and3.6.4). This review indicated that the area inthe vicinity of the GCNP contains a greatnumber and variety of historic properties thatare distributed throughout the area.

The 1996 Final EA and this SupplementalEA focus on areas in and around the GrandCanyon that could potentially be impacted bythe new flight regulations and routestructure. In developing the proposedcommercial air tour route structure andairspace configuration, the FAA consideredsites identified by Native Americancommunities as TCPs. The FAA consultedwith tribal representatives and authorities inan effort to minimize overflights ofproperties located in areas to which thetribes ascribe traditional cultural significance.As a first step in the consulting process,while no specific TCPs were formallyidentified and evaluated by FAA todetermine their eligibility for inclusion in theNational Register, FAA adopted a broadapproach to fulfill its NHPA, Section 106responsibilities. This approach involved anattempt to avoid impact and accommodateprivacy concerns of the Tribes withoutidentifying and determining the eligibility ofspecific TCPs that could be impacted. Thisis considered an excellent practice in theidentification and treatment of TCPs as setforth in the National Register Bulletin 38,page 17, and also complies with ExecutiveOrder 13007.

Four GCNP areas containing substantialhistoric resources would be beneficiallyaffected by expanding the Bright Angel andDesert View Flight Free Zones. Aircraftflights would be farther from the GrandCanyon Village Historic District, North RimHistoric District, and the Desert ViewWatchtower and Hermits Rest areas (both

4-24

part of the Mary Elizabeth Jane ColterNational Landmark District). This is as aresult of the larger Bright Angel and DesertView FFZs.

The expansion of the Desert View FFZ tothe GCNP boundary, along with theenlargement of the SFRA boundary, help toprotect TCPs of importance to the NavajoNation, and the Hopi Tribe and Pueblo ofZuni Tribe. The relocation of commercial airtour routes known as Black-2 and Green-3has mitigated some effects of overflights onTCPs identified by Native American Tribes.Also, the most heavily used air tour route,Blue 1, would be eliminated under thePreferred Alternative. This advancessubstantial restoration of natural quiet to theGCNP and also avoids impacts on TCPs ofconcern to the Havasupai and other Tribes inthe National Canyon area. Among NativeAmerican Tribes, only the Havasupai havestatutorily designated traditional use landswithin the boundaries of the GCNP.

As a result of the FAA’s initial consultationefforts, the low annual average daily noiselevels involved (see Section 4.1), andmitigation measures incorporated in theundertaking, the FAA has determined thatnone of the alternatives will have adverseeffects on historic, cultural, or archaeologicalresources except as noted below. Therefore,the FAA issued a Finding of No AdverseEffect for the areas of concern to the KaibabPaiute Tribe, the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah,the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, the HopiTribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the HavasupaiTribe, and the Navajo Nation with any of theproposed alternatives.

The FAA recognizes the concern for privacyexpressed by Native Americans with regardto the majority of these TCPs. Therefore,not all sites of traditional religious or cultural

importance have been specifically identifiedin this document.

The FAA forwarded the Finding letters tothe Arizona SHPO (with copies to theappropriate Tribes) and the Navajo NationTHPO on July 7, 1999, and again onSeptember 9, 1999, after modification of thePreferred Alternative in the Draft SEA. OnOctober 10, 1999, the Arizona SHPOforwarded a letter to the FAA (seeAppendix H) advising concurrence with theFinding, contingent upon Tribal concurrence.In accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.5(c),the Navajo THPO and Tribes had 30 days tosubmit an objection to the Agency’s Finding.The FAA did not receive a response from theNavajo THPO and the other interestedTribes. Therefore, pursuant to 36 CFR Part800.5 (c)(1), the FAA has complied withNHPA Section 106 for this undertaking andhas issued a Finding of No Adverse Effectfor the Undertaking except for that portioninvolving lands of the Hualapai Tribe.

The FAA, in cooperation with the NPS, hasconducted Section 106 consultations withthe Hualapai Tribe and THPO for the pastthree years. FAA began identifying culturaland historic properties that might be affectedby the undertaking early in the process.Between March 1998 and December 1999,FAA funded ethnographic studies by theHualapai Department of Cultural Resources(HDCR). These studies included archivalresearch, initial community contact, use ofhelicopters to bring Hualapai elders overTCPs and to visit sites within the APE,interviews with elders, and review of maps toidentify TCPs and resource areas.

These ethnographic studies were completedin two phases and focused on major canyons,critical and sensitive areas, and locationsmost accessible and closest to the proposed

4-25

flight routes. The first phase addressed theDecember 1996 Notice of Availability ofCommercial Air Tour Routes. The secondphase addressed the June 1999 Notice. Inall, three reports were prepared, a DraftPreliminary Report, dated November 2,1998, and two Final Ethnographic StudyReports, dated March 31, 1999, andDecember 3, 1999. The non-confidentialaspects of the resource identificationsdeveloped through consultation and studywere presented in the December 1996 FinalEA, the June 1999 Draft SEA, and in thisFinal SEA.

In addition to funding these ethnographicstudies, to meet the mandate of Pub. L. 100-91 within the timeframe established by theApril 1996 Presidential Memorandum,Additional Transportation Planning ToAddress Impacts Of Transportation onNational Parks, 61 FR 18229, April 25,1996, the FAA sought to expedite theSection 106 process. With the HualapaiTribe, as with the other Tribes as discussedabove, the FAA sought to take the broadapproach encouraged by National RegisterBulletin 38. Through scoping for the DraftSEA and consultations with the HualapaiTribe, the FAA sought to redesign theproposed commercial air tour routes toaddress certain areas identified by theHualapai Tribe as being of traditionalreligious and cultural significance. Section4.1 of the Draft SEA included locationsselected by the FAA to represent areaswhere Hualapai TCPs were known to existby FAA and NPS, as well as other noisesensitive areas outside the GCNP.

To the west, the Hualapai Reservationcurrently experiences overflights by fixedwing tour aircraft on Blue-2 and helicoptertour aircraft on Green-4. Some of thesesightseeing operations land at Grand Canyon

West Airport under contract to the HualapaiTribe. To the east, the Hualapai Reservationexperiences overflights by commercial airtour operators using fixed wing aircraftenroute to Tusayan from Las Vegas on Blue-1, Blue Direct, and Blue Direct South.Under the No Action alternative, for 2003,Blue-1 would average approximately 80flights per day, Blue Direct approximately 70flights per day, and Blue Direct Southapproximately 25 flights per day.

To address potential impacts on areas ofconcern to the Hualapai Tribe, portions ofthe commercial air tour routes known asBlue-2 (fixed wing) and Green-4 (helicopter)east and south of the area known as SurpriseCanyon would be eliminated under thePreferred Alternative. Additionally, theremaining helicopter and fixed wing routeswest over the Colorado River in the Sanuparea would be modified so that they do notdirectly overfly TCPs. Further, as discussedabove, Blue-1, the most heavily used air tourroute, would be eliminated both to enhancesubstantial restoration of natural quiet and toavoid impacts on TCPs in the vicinity ofNational Canyon of importance to both theHavasupai and Hualapai Tribes.

The elimination of Blue-1 would redistributeflights from Blue-1 to Blue Direct North andBlue Direct South, the remaining two directroutes over the east side of the Reservationused by tour operators flying fixed wingaircraft. Under the Preferred Alternative, for2003, Blue Direct North would averageapproximately 90 flights per day and BlueDirect South, approximately 64 flights perday (see Figure 2-2 for route locations). TheHualapai reported TCPs near both of theseroutes. As part of the Preferred Alternative,the FAA also raised the minimum altitudeand adjusted the location of the route knownas Blue Direct South as far northward as

4-26

feasible consistent with minimum separationand safety standards.

After NPS proposed to refine the waynatural quiet is measured in the GCNPpursuant to Pub. L. 100-91, in July 1999, theHualapai Tribe and THPO proposed to applythis same methodology to the HualapaiReservation and define a larger APE. Tofacilitate consultation, FAA agreed to anAPE larger than first delineated, which theTribe accepted in mid-October 1999. For amore detailed discussion, see Section 3.6.4.Devoting special attention to the area in thevicinity of Blue Direct North and Blue DirectSouth, the FAA began the process ofdetermining whether the undertaking (thePreferred Alternative) would have adverseeffects. The HDCR provided, in confidence,geographic coordinates for 30 additionalrepresentative locations. In its final report ofthe Ethnographic Study, dated December 3,1999, the HDCR identified 10 properties, allof which are TCPs and associatedarchaeological sites. The FAA provided theHualapai Tribe with its assessment of noiseand visual impacts for the representativelocations selected by the FAA (see Section4.1) and the 30 provided by the Tribe.

The FAA met with representatives of theHualapai Tribe, NPS, and the AdvisoryCouncil on Historic Preservation onDecember 14, 15, and 16, 1999; and heldteleconferences on December 17, 20, 22, and27, 1999 and January 3, 4, 5 and 7, 2000.During the December 15 meeting, the HDCRprovided FAA with a list of 40 TCPs.43

During the consultation process, the FAAconsulted the Keeper of the NationalRegister (the National Park Service) for itsviews on specific location issues. As part ofthis consultation, the FAA determined thatthe undertaking would adversely affect atleast some of the 40 TCPs, deemed eligible

by FAA for inclusion in the National Registerof Historic Places.44

During consultation, the Tribe and THPOrejected the FAA’s proposal to use amemorandum of agreement (MOA).Pursuant to 36 CFR Section 800.6(c)(6)(formerly 36 CFR 800.11(a)(2)), Federalagencies may address unknown resources inan MOA by planning for subsequentdiscovery or identification of additionalhistoric properties affected by theundertaking. The Tribe was unwilling toagree to an MOA because, in its view,provisions for subsequent discovery couldnot be relied upon until the Phase II (B)ethnographic study to identify all TCPs in theremainder of the APE had been completed.Programmatic Agreements (PA) may be usedpursuant to 36 CFR 800.14(b)(3) instead ofMOAs where effects on historic propertiescannot be fully determined prior to approvalof an undertaking. PAs may also be usedwhere, as here, other circumstances, such asan extremely large geographic area andcomplex undertaking, warrant a departurefrom the normal Section 106 process.Rather than conclude that negotiation andseek formal comment by the AdvisoryCouncil (which is considered a last resort),the FAA, in cooperation with the NPS, andin consultation with the Hualapai Tribe,THPO, and the Advisory Council determinedto follow the programmatic approachallowed in NHPA Section 106. Therefore,the FAA, NPS, the Advisory Council, theHualapai Tribe, and the Hualapai THPOsigned a PA pursuant to 36 CFR 800.14(b)in January 2000. As part of developing thisPA, the FAA followed the same proceduresfor resolving adverse effects that are used incompleting a MOA. (36 CFR Section800.14 (b)(3) provides that consultation shallfollow Section 800.6).

4-27

The PA includes provisions for furtheridentification and evaluation of TCPs. Itgoverns implementation of a negotiatedprogram to monitor effects and mitigateadverse effects to TCPs located within theAPE on the Hualapai Reservation. Briefly,in addition to the design of mitigationmeasures described above in the PreferredAlternative, the FAA commits: to encourageoperators using visual flight rules routes tofly on the highest altitude practicable on BlueDirect North and Blue Direct Southconsistent with safety, to issue Notices toAirmen to mitigate effects of overflights ontraditional cultural ceremonies of shortduration, to incorporate appropriateinformation in FAA safety and informationalmeetings for operators, to consideropportunities in describing routes on maps toreduce impacts on TCPs, to provide trainingto members of the Hualapai Tribe inidentifying and reporting violations, and torespond to violations reported by membersof the Tribe.

The FAA also agreed to a program ofassistance to the Hualapai Tribe inmonitoring the auditory, visual, and othereffects of the undertaking on TCPs. As partof long-term mitigation, the FAA agreed toconsider the results of the monitoringprogram and, if necessary to address adverseeffects, to develop and evaluate alternativemitigation measures, including rerouting ofcommercial SFRA operations and revision ofthe SFRA airspace to minimize overflights ofthe Hualapai Reservation, and time of dayrestrictions. Long-term mitigation will bedone as part of the Comprehensive NoiseManagement Plan or as otherwise scheduledunder the terms of the PA.

In exercising its authority to manage thenavigable airspace, FAA also accommodatedreligious practices engaged in by the

Hualapai Tribe. During the NHPA Section106 consultation process, the Hualapai Tribeand THPO indicated that activities at TCPsinclude traditional hunting, religious andceremonial activities, pilgrimage routes, andburial sites, among others. Also, traditionalhunting and plant gathering incorporateprayer and contemplation. The HualapaiTribe and THPO expressed concern that thereligious and ceremonial activitiesundertaken at TCPs depend upon anuninterrupted viewshed and a clear line ofsight for prayers to travel uninterrupted fromone site to another. In addition, traditionalpractitioners described the importance ofprivacy and natural quiet to religious andceremonial activities. Some of the religiousactivities are believed to be essential torestoring or maintaining the health of tribalmembers and the socio-cultural well being ofthe tribal community.

As described above, the FAA has takennumerous steps to minimize the impact thatapproval of revised air tour routes will haveon Hualapai religious activities. For exampleFAA proposes to choose the best alternativeroute to protect sites in critical and sensitiveareas from adverse audible intrusion. FAA isalso planning steps to reduce the visualimpact of flights on Blue Direct North andSouth on the surrounding area. FAAcarefully considered concerns for naturalquiet, a clear viewshed, and completeprivacy. However, fixed wing air touraircraft already overfly the eastern portion ofthe Reservation on the routes known as BlueDirect and Blue Direct South. Therefore,the FAA conducted its evaluation andconsideration of alternatives and mitigationmeasures in the context of the current airtour environment, and not in the context ofconditions existing before SFAR 50-2 wasestablished or before air tour routes existed.FAA used the existing air tour routes as a

4-28

baseline against which to evaluatealternatives and mitigation. The solicitudeshown by FAA accords with therequirements of American Indian ReligiousFreedom Act of 1978 and Executive Order13007 to accommodate access to, and use ofsacred sites on Federal land. The PreferredAlternative also comports with the ReligiousFreedom Restoration Act, as applicable.

4.3 DOT SECTION 4(f)

Section 4(f) of the Department ofTransportation Act, 49 U.S.C. Section 303,provides that the Secretary of Transportationshall not approve a program or project thatrequires the use of publicly-owned land of apark, recreation area, or wildlife andwaterfowl refuge of national, State, or localsignificance, or land of a historic site ofnational, State, or local significance (asdetermined by the officials havingjurisdiction thereof), unless there is nofeasible and prudent alternative to the use ofsuch land and such program or projectincludes all possible planning to minimizeharm. FAA guidance implementing Section4(f) and the regulations implementingSection 106 of the NHPA similarly definehistoric sites.

Under Section 4(f), use may be actual andphysical or it may be constructive. Actionswhich render Section 4(f) propertiesunsuitable for the uses occurring at thesesites may constitute a “constructive use” ofsuch properties even if no physical taking ofproperty is involved. FAA must determine ifthe activity associated with the proposalconflicts with or is compatible with thenormal activity or aesthetic value associatedwith the property. For example, noise levelsand other associated environmental impacts,which substantially impair the use and valueof such properties or preclude the activities

normally occurring at such properties, wouldtherefore constitute a constructive use ofproperty.

As the proposal involves commercial air tourroutes, limitation on operations, and airspacemodifications, none of the alternativesconsidered require construction activity,ground disturbance, or the physical use ofany lands protected under Section 4(f) withinthe GCNP and adjoining public lands oradjoining Native American lands.

Grand Canyon National Park andAdjoining Public Lands

The U.S. Congress stated in Pub. L. 100-91that noise associated with aircraft overflightsat GCNP was causing “a significant adverseeffect on the natural quiet and experience ofthe park....”45

The Proposed Action is an effort to addressthe Congressional concern by reducing theeffects of aircraft noise. To the extent thatthe proposed project reduces aircraft noiseeffects, the proposed action does not cause ause (actual or constructive) under DOTSection 4(f) to the GCNP or its adjoiningpublic lands.

The analysis in Section 4.1 indicates thatincreases in noise under the PreferredAlternative would range from 0 dB to 13.6dB A, at levels between 18 to 43 dB, at therepresentative locations provided inAppendix A. The proposed action wouldnot exceed the FAA’s accepted thresholds ofsignificant noise impact for traditionalrecreational activities at any of theserepresentative locations. In addition, noiselevels associated with any of the proposedalternatives are well below the FAA’saccepted threshold of significance forresidential land uses at all points in the SFRA

4-29

area with the exception of Grand CanyonNational Park Airport itself.

Adjoining Native American Lands

As a result of the undertaking, the FAArecognized the potential for effects to TCPson adjoining Native American lands, asdefined in Section 106 of the NHPA andSection 4(f).

Historic properties are not used within themeaning of Section 4(f) when compliancewith Section 106 results in a determinationof no effect or no adverse effect.46 There isalso no use if the increase in projected noisewhen compared with the no actionalternative is barely perceptible (3 dB orless). 3 dB changes represent a doubling insound energy. Also, Section 4(f) does notapply to archaeological resources that havevalue chiefly for data recovery and which arenot important for preservation in place.

If compliance with Section 106 results in afinding of adverse effect, whether there is acorresponding use under Section 4(f)depends upon whether the adverse effectswould substantially impair historic integrity.Other than the three-decibel screeningcriteria for protected properties under DOTSection 4(f), there are no federal guidelinesfor determining compatibility of TCPs withaircraft noise exposure levels. Accordingly,the determination is made on a site by sitebasis of whether increases in noise abovethree decibels conflict with the normalactivity and values associated with thehistoric property to the extent that it resultsin substantial impairment.

Adjoining Native American Lands except theHualapai Reservation

Based upon Section 106 consultation and theFinding of No Adverse Effect for alladjoining Native American lands except theHualapai Reservation, there is no use underSection 4(f) in these areas.

The Hualapai Reservation

As explained in Section 4.2, during theapproximately three year NHPA Section 106consultation process, the HualapaiDepartment of Cultural Resources (HDCR)identified 40 TCPs in critical and sensitiveareas, closest to the proposed air tour routes.As part of a Programmatic Agreement (PA)with the Hualapai Tribe and THPO, FAAdetermined that the current undertaking(Preferred Alternative) would adverselyaffect some of the TCPs the Hualapaiidentified. Such effects result fromelimination of Blue-1 and corollary increasesin traffic on Blue Direct (to be designatedBlue Direct North) and Blue Direct South.In the year 2003 under the PreferredAlternative when compared to the No Actionalternative, average annual flights per day onBlue Direct North would increase fromapproximately 72 to 83. On Blue DirectSouth, such flights would increase fromapproximately 25 to 60.

FAA evaluated the potential for adverseeffects by considering whether HualapaiTCPs would be subject to perceptible noiseincreases under the Preferred Alternative.47

Under the Preferred Alternative for 2000, sixof the 40 identified TCPs would experienceincreases in noise of 3 dB and above. Theincreases range from 4.3 to 13.6 dB, asshown in Table 4.18.48 With the continuingincrease in the number of operations under

4-30

the No Action Alternative and the limitationon operations under the PreferredAlternative, the differences between the NoAction and Preferred Alternatives diminishover time.

After determining that six TCPs experienceperceptible increases in noise that may alterthe characteristics that make them eligible forinclusion in the National Register of HistoricPlaces, FAA carefully reviewed theinformation provided by the HDCR,including two reports from the ethnographicstudy, describing the values, activities,attributes, and setting of these historic

properties. Under the Department ofTransportation Act Section 4(f), FAA had todetermine whether this adverse effect wouldconflict with the normal activities andaesthetic values of the historic property. Inparticular, it was necessary to considerwhether the magnitude of expected noiseincreases would be of sufficient degree tosubstantially impair the features or activitiesthat are elements of their historicsignificance. FAA recognizes that TCPhistoric integrity has both physical andassociative elements. Further, the views oftraditional cultural practitioners must becarefully weighed in determining whether

Table 4.18

Grand Canyon Preferred Alternative LAeq12h

For Selected Hualapai Reservation TCPs

TCP IDNumber Site

NoAction(2000)

PreferredAction(2000)

ChangeFrom

No Action(2000)

NoAction(2003)


ChangeFrom

No Action(2003)

NoAction(2008)


ChangeFrom

No Action(2008)

1 1a 29.2 40.6 11.4 29.6 40.6 11 30.3 40.6 10.32 2a 32.4 41.2 8.8 32.9 41.2 8.3 33.6 41.2 7.6

2b 33.7 39.5 5.8 34.1 39.5 5.4 34.8 39.5 4.72c 30.4 37.6 7.2 30.8 37.6 6.8 31.5 37.6 6.12d 31.2 37.7 6.5 31.6 37.7 6.1 32.3 37.7 5.42e 30.9 37.4 6.5 31.3 37.4 6.1 32.0 37.4 5.4

3 3a 28.7 39.9 11.2 29.2 39.9 10.7 29.9 39.9 103b 29.0 42.6 13.6 29.4 42.6 13.2 30.1 42.6 12.5

4 4a 29.3 41.2 11.9 29.7 41.2 11.5 30.4 41.2 10.85 5a 33.6 40.7 7.1 34.1 40.7 6.6 34.8 40.7 5.96 6a 33.2 37.5 4.3 33.7 37.5 3.8 34.4 37.5 3.1

4-31

and to what extent alteration of the settingand environment through additional aircraftnoise and overflights will impact thecontinued significance and value of a TCP.The evaluation of noise and visual effects onsuch properties is an emerging field inhistoric preservation. It is acceptable toconsider how traditional practices have beenaffected by similar noise intrusions at otherTCPs.

The following summarizes activities for thesix TCPs with the corresponding 11representative locations. The detailsconcerning the actual use of the TCPs areconfidential. This information is taken fromthe December 1999 Ethnographic Study thatwas conducted by the Hualapai Tribe. ForSite 1, uses include traditional cattleranching, hunting and ancestral habitation.Site 2 is used for traditional hunting,ceremonial plant gathering and ranching. Itis also used for access and prayer to a certainreligious site. Site 3 is used for traditionalgame and cattle grazing, and religious andhealing purposes. Site 4 is used for religiouspurposes, which includes singing andpraying. Site 5 is used for traditionalhunting, ceremonial plant gathering andranching; ancestral habitation; and religiousactivities that includes prayer, song, visionquest, and pilgrimages by foot and throughdreams. Site 6 is used for traditionalranching and hunting. Traditional religiousactivities at Hualapai TCPs are described inmore detail in Section 4.2.

Commercial air tour aircraft currently overflyall six TCPs, which experience LAeq12h noiselevels ranging from 28.5 to 33.4 dB. Bycontrast, rural areas typically experienceambient noise levels in the range of 20 dB.Under the Preferred Alternative for 2000,cumulative LAeq12h noise levels for theseTCPs would range from 37.5 to 42.6 dB.

The ethnographic studies prepared by theHualapai Tribe and THPO indicate that theTribe continues to use and value TCPs inareas of the Reservation near existing airtour routes that currently experiencecomparable noise levels and have comparablereligious, traditional ranching, and otheractivities and aesthetic values.

As to the effects of noise on traditional cattleranching and hunting, the nature of theaction in consolidating existing air tourroutes and limiting the growth in the numberof flights suggests that these activities shouldbe little, if at all, affected. According to theNPS biological assessment prepared for theendangered species consultation, althoughaircraft may startle or momentarily alter thebehavior of individual animals, there is noevidence that animal populations or theirhabitats in the Grand Canyon area have beennegatively impacted by the existing air touroperations. The subject has not receivedconcentrated attention, with the result beingthat “…it has proven difficult to draw anygeneral conclusions on the subject becausethere is much variability in response bothbetween and within species. Thus, no clearpolicies or guidelines have been developedconcerning noise exposure and animals” (seeNewman and Beattie 198549). Based uponthe best available information, and themitigation measures included in the January2000 NHPA Section 106 ProgrammaticAgreement, FAA has determined that theincreases in noise caused by the PreferredAlternative will not substantially impair orhave a significant adverse impact upon thevalue of the six Hualapai TCPs.

To determine the potential for visual impactfor the six TCPs that experienced perceptibleincreases in noise, FAA considered the sizeof the largest aircraft expected to operate onBlue Direct North and Blue Direct South,

4-32

which is a 52-foot long Twin Otter. FAAalso considered the distance of the TCP fromthe air tour route, the elevation of the TCPand the altitude of the commercial air touraircraft. FAA posited that perceptibleincreases in noise reflect the potential forsignificant visual intrusion.

Based upon this information, the FAAdetermined the percentage of the viewingplane that the aircraft would occupy whenviewed from the TCP. This was determinedfor both the No Action alternative and

Preferred Alternative. Tables 4.19 and 4.20provide the results of this analysis. FAAassumed a 55-degree field of vision for thisanalysis.

Additionally FAA determined how large theaircraft would appear when viewed at arm’slength from the TCP under both alternatives.This information is provided in Tables 4.21and 4.22.

Table 4.19

Grand Canyon TCP Vision Field Calculations Preferred Alternative

TCP IDNumber

SiteWithin

TCP

MinimumAltitude

(ft)

SiteElevation

(ft)Elevation

Difference (ft)

SiteHorizontalDistance

From TourRoute (ft)

AircraftClosest

ProximityTo Site (ft)

Portion ofHorizon

Visible (ft)

% VisualField

Obscuredby Aircraft

1 1a 9,500 6,610 2,890 4,620 5,449 5,231 0.99%2 2a 9,500 6,460 3,040 0 3,040 2,918 1.78%

2b 9,500 6,680 2,820 1,320 3,114 2,989 1.74%2c 9,500 7,024 2,476 7,260 7,671 7,363 0.71%2d 9,500 6,460 3,040 7,260 7,871 7,555 0.69%2e 9,500 6,600 2,900 7,920 8,434 8,096 0.64%

3 3a 9,500 1,620 7,880 5,940 9,868 9,473 0.55%3b 9,500 6,573 2,927 7,920 8,444 8,105 0.64%

4 4a 9,500 6,570 2,930 3,960 4,926 4,729 1.10%5 5a 9,500 6,020 3,480 660 3,542 3,400 1.53%6 6a 9,500 6,307 3,193 9,240 9,776 9,384 0.55%

4-33

Table 4.20

Grand Canyon TCP Vision Field Calculations No Action Alternative

TCP IDNumber

SiteWithin

TCP

MinimumAltitude

(ft)

SiteElevation

(ft)Elevation

Difference (ft)


From TourRoute (ft)

AircraftClosest


Portion ofHorizon

Visible (ft)

% VisualField

Obscured byAircraft

1 1a 8,500 6,610 1,890 10,560 10,728 10,298 0.50%2 2a 8,500 6,460 2,040 0 2,040 1,958 2.66%

2b 8,500 6,680 1,820 2,640 3,207 3,078 1.69%2c 8,500 7,024 1,476 11,880 11,971 11,492 0.45%2d 8,500 6,460 2,040 13,200 13,357 12,822 0.41%2e 8,500 6,600 1,900 11,880 12,031 11,549 0.45%

3 3a 8,500 1,620 6,880 7,920 10,491 10,071 0.52%3b 8,500 6,573 1,927 9,240 9,439 9,061 0.57%

4 4a 8,500 6,570 1,930 4,752 5,129 4,923 1.06%5 5a 8,500 6,020 2,480 2,640 3,622 3,477 1.50%6 6a 8,500 6,307 2,193 9,240 9,497 9,116 0.57%

Table 4.21

Grand Canyon TCP Arm's Length Calculations Preferred Alternative

TCP IDNumber

SiteWithin

TCP

Minimum

Altitude(ft)

SiteElevation

(ft)Elevation

Difference (ft)


From TourRoute (ft)

AircraftClosest


AircraftSize

Viewed AtArm's

Length (in)

1 1a 9,500 6,610 2,890 4,620 5,449 0.342 2a 9,500 6,460 3,040 0 3,040 0.62

2b 9,500 6,680 2,820 1,320 3,114 0.602c 9,500 7,024 2,476 7,260 7,671 0.242d 9,500 6,460 3,040 7,260 7,871 0.242e 9,500 6,600 2,900 7,920 8,434 0.22

3 3a 9,500 1,620 7,880 5,940 9,868 0.193b 9,500 6,573 2,963 7,920 8,456 0.22

4 4a 9,500 6,570 2,930 3,960 4,926 0.385 5a 9,500 6,020 3,480 660 3,542 0.536 6a 9,500 6,307 3,193 9,240 9,776 0.19

4-34

Table 4.22

Grand Canyon TCP Arm's Length Calculations No Action Alternative

TCP IDNumber

SiteWithin

TCP

MinimumAltitude

(ft)

SiteElevation

(ft)Elevation

Difference (ft)


FromTour

Route (ft)

AircraftClosest


AircraftSize Viewed

At Arm'sLength (in)

1 1a 8,500 6,610 1,890 10,560 10,728 0.172 2a 8,500 6,460 2,040 0 2,040 0.92

2b 8,500 6,680 1,820 2,640 3,207 0.582c 8,500 7,024 1,476 11,880 11,971 0.162d 8,500 6,460 2,040 13,200 13,357 0.142e 8,500 6,600 1,900 11,880 12,031 0.16

3 3a 8,500 1,620 6,880 7,920 10,491 0.183b 8,500 6,573 1,963 9,240 9,446 0.20

4 4a 8,500 6,570 1,930 4,752 5,129 0.365 5a 8,500 6,020 2,480 2,640 3,622 0.526 6a 8,500 6,307 2,193 9,240 9,497 0.20

The distance between the aircraft andeach of the six TCPs ranges from 3,040 feetto 9,868 feet under the Preferred Alternative.For the No Action alternative, the range isfrom 2,040 feet to 13,357 feet.

For example, the TCP with the highestelevation along the Blue Direct North andBlue Direct South routes is Site 2c (elevation7,024 feet MSL). Under the No Actionalternative, the lowest altitude at whichcommercial air tour aircraft will overfly thislocation is 8,500 feet MSL. Accordingly, anaircraft would occupy .45 percent of theviewing plane of an individual standing atthis location. Under the Proposed Action,the percentage occupied would be .71percent. Additionally, the analysis indicatesthat the aircraft would appear to be .16inches long when viewed at arm’s lengthunder the No Action Alternative and .24inches under the Preferred Alternative. Thevisual intrusion for these sites is relativelysmall, as shown in Tables 4.21 and 4.22.

Biophysical literature states that a personwith standard 20/20 vision can recognize anobject that subtends an angle of one minuteof arc; this equates to approximately .64mile.50 Of these TCPs, there are only twolocations in the vicinity of Prospect Canyonat which aircraft are closer than six tenths ofa mile from the location. At these distances,people on the aircraft may be able todistinguish activities at the TCP.Additionally, the increases in magnitude ofthe arm’s length view are less than one inch.For the foregoing reasons, the FAA hasdetermined that the Preferred Alternativedoes not cause a significant visual intrusionamounting to a constructive use.

In summary, the Preferred Alternative wouldadversely affect but would not substantiallyimpair the value of the six TCPs in thevicinity of Blue Direct North and Blue DirectSouth that would experience an increase inoverflights. These six TCPs are not in apristine acoustic environment, but one that

4-35

already experiences visual intrusions andaircraft noise. The noise is at levels greaterthan those typically experienced in a ruralarea. The Hualapai Tribe continues to useand value similar Hualapai TCPs in areascurrently experiencing comparable levels ofnoise. Based upon the proposal toencourage air tour operators to operate atthe highest altitude operationally feasibleconsistent with safety requirements, theagreement to issue Notices to Airmen toprotect important religious ceremonies andother mitigation measures in the January2000 Programmatic Agreement, the impacts,while adverse, would not substantially impairthe historic characteristics of these TCPs.

The Hualapai Tribe’s assessment that therewould be significant adverse impacts on theattributes and settings of all 40 TCPsidentified is based, at least in part, upon apre-SFAR 50-2 or pre-air tour set ofconditions. The No Action Alternative wasproperly used as a baseline to evaluate thepotential effects of the proposed action andreasonable alternatives, consistent withNEPA and CEQ.

To obtain more complete data and addressthe concerns of the Hualapai Tribe andTHPO, the January 2000 PA stipulates,among other things, that FAA, incooperation with NPS and in consultationwith the Hualapai Tribe and THPO, willinitiate a monitoring program to consider theauditory, visual and other effects of theundertaking on TCPs. If significant newinformation is revealed through thismonitoring program, FAA will reevaluatethis environmental assessment and reconsiderits determination of “no use” under Section4(f). This reevaluation will be done inconjunction with the Comprehensive NoiseManagement Plan or in accordance with theprovisions for scheduling in the PA. If

constructive use is found, then the existenceof prudent and feasible alternatives andplanning to minimize harm will be evaluated,consistent with Section 4(f). Measures to beconsidered if the monitoring program revealsadverse effects include the rerouting ofcommercial SFRA operations and revision ofSFRA airspace to minimize overflights of theHualapai Reservation and time of dayrestrictions as provided in Paragraph V(C)(1)(b) of the PA.

However, if there is a constructive use ofthese six TCPs, then based upon theinformation available to date andconsultation with the Hualapai Tribe andTHPO as part of the NHPA Section 106process, FAA has met the requirements ofSection 4(f). FAA’s analysis of alternativesfor this Final SEA (see Sections 2.1 and 2.2)indicates that there is no feasible and prudentalternative to avoid the use of historicproperties. Each alternative route proposalbefore the FAA, according to theethnographic reports prepared by theHualapai Tribe, involved a “use” of at leastone TCP. As shown in Section 2.2, FAAthoroughly considered a range of alternativesto avoid the six Hualapai TCPs byeliminating or relocating the remaining twoBlue Direct routes. FAA determined thatthese alternatives were not safe. Even ifthere were not safety issues, it is unclear thatthese alternatives would achieve thepurposes and need of the project (see alsoSection 1.2). Further, commercial air tourroutes between Las Vegas, Nevada, andTusayan, Arizona, cannot avoid the sixknown TCPs on the east side of theReservation without flying a circuitouscomplex route. This circuitous routing is notreasonable from a safety standpointconsidering the level of traffic, lack of visualreference points and flight under visual flightrules. Where there are no alternatives that

4-36

avoid all affected 4(f) properties, subsection4(f)(2) requires the agency to ensure that itsplans minimize harm to the properties.Through Section 106 consultations, duringwhich FAA sought ways to avoid or reduceadverse effects to Hualapai TCPs, FAA hasmet the requirements of Section 4(f)(2). Theimmediate and long-term mitigation andmonitoring program in the January 2000Programmatic Agreement constitute allpossible planning to minimize harm resultingfrom any use.

As discussed in Section 4.2, FAA beganidentifying cultural and historic propertiesthat might be affected by the undertakingearly in the process. Between March 1998and December 1999, FAA fundedethnographic studies by the HDCR. Thenon-confidential aspects of the resourceidentifications developed throughconsultation and study were presented in theDecember 1996 Final EA, the June 1999Draft SEA, and in this Final SEA. The 40TCPs identified by the HDCR in theDecember 15, 1999, list reflect the range ofuses, activities, settings, and feelings andother elements of historic eligibility forHualapai TCPs. FAA conductedsupplemental noise modeling atrepresentative locations provided by theHDCR for known TCPs in critical andsensitive areas near the blue direct routes,the area most adversely affected by PreferredAlternative. Supplemental noise modelingverifies that the FAA has reduced overallnoise levels on the Hualapai Reservation.Apart from the operations by air tourcompanies with contracts to land at GrandCanyon West Airport that will be execpted,the limitation on commercial SFRAoperations will assure an overall decrease innoise and visual impacts on Hualapai TCPs.Noise has been reduced or eliminated nearTCPs on the west and southern portions of

the Reservation where routes have beenmodified and partially or completelyeliminated. Although further studies havebeen agreed-upon to identify all TCPs in theremainder of the APE as part of the NHPASection 106 process, in these circumstancesFAA has sufficiently identified Section 4(f)properties to proceed with the project.51

Based upon the nature of the impacts and ofpotential new sites, the possibility ofsubstantial impairment is extremely remote.

4.4 WILD AND SCENICRIVERS

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Pub. L. 90-542, as amended) describes those river areaseligible to be included in a system affordedprotection under the Act as free-flowing andpossessing “...outstandingly remarkablescenic, recreational, geologic, fish andwildlife, historic, cultural, or other similarvalues.” As described in Section 3.6.5, theNPS reports that the Colorado River withinthe SFRA, as well as many of its majortributaries, meets the criteria for designationas a wild and scenic river, and so is treated inaccordance with the requirements of theWild and Scenic Rivers Act.

The proposed alternatives considered addingflight-free zones over large sections of theColorado River and portions of the LittleColorado River. Within the impact analysisarea, the Colorado River and Little ColoradoRiver receive additional protection from theToroweap/Shinumo and Desert View FFZs.Based on a review of Figures 4-9 and 4-10,parts of the river, including the intersectionof the Colorado and Little Colorado Riversunder the expanded Toroweap/Shinumo andDesert View FFZs, will experience reducednoise levels when compared to the NoAction alternative.

4-37

4.5 VISUAL IMPACTS

This impact category is normally related toconsiderations of the aesthetic integrity of anarea in relation to proposed development inresidential areas, disruption of scenic vistas,impairment of experience at historic sites,and interference with privacy duringceremonies at Native American sacred sites.None of the proposed alternatives consideredinvolve physical development orconstruction.

The visual impact of air traffic across thescenic vistas of the Grand Canyon is a matterof potential concern. The U.S. ForestService report, National Forest LandscapeManagement, Volume 2, indicates thedifficulty of establishing acceptable levels ofvisible activity. The report finds that anindividual’s reaction to visible elements inthe environment is dependent upon theirpersonal expectations and images of the area.Accordingly, persons expecting a pristineenvironment may be concerned by the visiblepresence of any aircraft. Others withdifferent expectations might not beconcerned by any amount of aircraft activity.

As stated in the 1996 Final EA, the visualimpact of air traffic across the scenic vistasof GCNP is a potential concern. TheProposed Action, considering any of theproposed alternatives, reduces the area of theGCNP that is subject to low-level overflightsrelative to the No Action alternative. Therewill be increases in density of aircraft inspecific areas due to the revised commercialair tour routing, but such increases are notlikely to change the visual character of theseareas for the same reasons that visualcharacter was not changed for the Final EAProposed Action.

Potential adverse visual impacts to TCPsidentified by the Hualapai Tribe and THPOare discussed in Sections 4.2 and 4.3.

4.6 SOCIAL/SOCIOECONOMICIMPACTS

This impact category addresses the physicaldisruption or division of communities,relocation of residences or businesses,altered surface transportation systems, shiftsin population movement or growth, changesin public service demands and business oreconomic activity. Of these, the only impactthat the Proposed Action may have relates tobusiness activity.

The Hualapai Tribe expressed concern overthe potential detrimental economic impact ofthe Proposed Rule evaluated in the Final EA.The Proposed Action, with any of theproposed commercial air tour routesanalyzed in this Supplemental EA, does notalter the Hualapai’s unrestricted access tothe airport on the Hualapai Reservation.Additionally, the FAA is still committed toworking with the Hualapai Tribe, whenevernecessary, to support future development atGrand Canyon West Airport.

To this end, during the public commentperiod, the Hualapai Tribe expressed concernthat the operations limitation, if imposed oncommercial air tour operations that land onthe Hualapai Reservation, would undermineeconomic development efforts at GrandCanyon West. The Hualapai Tribe currentlycollects more than $2.3 million annually fromcommercial air tour operators. Without theexception for commercial air tour operationsconducted along Blue-2 and Green-4 under

4-38

contract with the Hualapai Tribe, the FAAestimates that the Tribe would lose about$4.9 million in ground tour revenue andlanding fees over the next nine years. TheTribe estimates that over 45 percent of itsgeneral fund budget is supported by therevenues derived from the commercial airtours conducted to the reservation alongGreen-4 and Blue-2. The general fund is theprimary funding source for tribal governmentpositions (the tribal government employs40% of tribal members), and is used to fundall public works programs.

Based on this information, the FAA hasdetermined that the operations limitation rulewould have a significant adverse economicimpact on the Hualapai Tribe. Therefore,pursuant to the Federal government’s trustresponsibility to the Hualapai Tribe, the FAAand NPS have determined to exceptcommercial air tour operations that supportHualapai economic development from theoperations limitation under very strictguidelines. The actual exception language iscontained in the proposed final rule for theCommercial Air Tour Limitation in theGrand Canyon National Park Special FlightRules Area. The Regulatory Evaluation,published with the operations limitationproposed final rule, also addresses theeconomic benefits accruing to commercial airtour operators who are under contract withthe Hualapai Tribe. This includes 90% ofthe helicopter and 10% of the fixed wingaircraft operations that are conducted alongGreen-4 and Blue-2, respectively.

As a result of comments from the NavajoNation expressing concern that theexpansion of the Desert View FFZ wouldprohibit operators from conductingcontracted aerial filming over Navajo lands,the eastern boundary of the Desert ViewFFZ has been placed at the GCNP boundary.

This modification to the preferred alternative(as contained in the Draft SEA) will avoidnegative impacts to economic activities insupport of the Navajo Nation. Leaving thelocation of the tour routes identified asBlack-2 and Green-3 and the SFRAboundary (as proposed in the Draft SEA)will protect areas containing TCPs, includingsacred sites identified by Native AmericanTribes.

The remaining air tour operations in theSFRA are proposed to be subject to anoperations limitation. Commercial air touroperators expressed concern that theoperations limitation would undermine theireconomic growth. The FAA acknowledgesthere will be significant economic impact as aresult of this Proposed Action (see theRegulatory Evaluation for the proposed finalrule).

As with the proposed action in the 1996Final EA, the Proposed Action in thisSupplemental EA does not involve groundtraffic and associated impacts.

4.7 ENVIRONMENTALJUSTICE

The DOT issued DOT order 5610.2,Environmental Justice in Low-IncomePopulations and Minority Populations (62FR 18377, April 15, 1997) to implement, inpart, Executive Order 12898, FederalActions to Address Environmental Justice inMinority Populations and Low IncomePopulations (59 FR 7629, February 16,1994) and the accompanying PresidentialMemorandum and the DOT Strategy (60 FR33896, June 29, 1995). The PreferredAlternative would eliminate existing air tourroutes in the vicinity of Supai Village overthe Havasupai Reservation. At the same

4-39

time, the Preferred Alternative would alsoeliminate one of the three direct routes thatoverflies the east side of the HualapaiReservation. The Preferred Alternative alsoeliminates portions of the routes known asBlue-2 and Green-4 south of SurpriseCanyon which overfly the west side of theHualapai Reservation. The SupplementalEA indicates that the Proposed Action woulddecrease overall noise impacts on all NativeAmerican lands that are adjacent to theGCNP. It would not result in significantnoise or other environmental impacts onminority or low-income populations in thestudy area.

Environmental justice (EJ) is concerned withwhether or not adverse impacts to theenvironment and public health of minoritypopulations and low-income populations ofFederal actions are disproportionate. E.O.12898 requires an examination of whetherthese impacts, including impacts to NativeAmerican subsistence hunting and gathering,are disproportionately high and adverse. Theaccompanying Presidential Memorandumencourages consideration of EJ inenvironmental assessments, especially todetermine whether a significant impact mayoccur.

The population of the Grand Canyon regionis small and, thus, census tracts are large.The population within census tracts is notuniformly distributed. Population groupstend to be dispersed or transient.

Native American populations are defined asminority populations and are presumed to below-income or disadvantaged. Federallyrecognized tribes, including the tribes in thevicinity of the Grand Canyon (see 1994Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act),also enjoy a political relationship with theU.S. Government based on the U.S.

Constitution, treaties, specific statutes andexecutive orders, and court decisions. Thesepopulations tend to be concentrated inwidely dispersed settlements. Theiractivities, such as ceremonies at traditionalcultural sites, or subsistence hunting andgathering, are also dispersed.

Similarly, the population at or near theGCNP tends to be seasonal and concentratedin dispersed sites. Visitor activity occursthroughout the year but peaks during thesummer. Ranches and dispersed villages inthe vicinity of the GCNP may have a highproportion of Hispanic people, many ofwhom are also low-income, and non-Hispanics who are low-income.

The GCNP and, to a lesser extent,surrounding public lands and tribal landsreceive large numbers of visitors, especiallyduring the summer, who may stay a fewhours to several days or weeks. Manyvisitors concentrate their activities at highlydeveloped sites, such as the South Rim,while many others engage in dispersedrecreation, such as wilderness camping.

Impacts to Native Americans. Becausecensus tract data do not fully capture thenature of these populations and theiractivities, FAA qualitatively analyzed theimpacts and benefits following theprocedures in DOT Order 5610.2. Inworking toward substantially restoringnatural quiet, in the context of increasingvisitor activity, including air tour activity, inGCNP, the FAA has worked with NativeAmerican tribes adjacent to or withaboriginal interests in the Grand Canyon.This effort is to reduce or avoid adverseimpacts, especially from noise, by adjustingproposed routes and allowing for Notice toAirmen (NOTAM) on specific occasions inlimited areas. A NOTAM can be issued for a

4-40

specific reason and only for a limited timeperiod.

Impacts to Native American SubsistenceHunting and Gathering. In accordancewith Sec. 5 of E.O. 12898, concerningimpacts to subsistence hunting, fishing, andgathering by Native Americans, FAAanalyzed the effects of the alternative air tourand airspace structure and procedures onthese activities. The Paiute commented onair pollution and intrusion during subsistencegathering activities in the context of Sec. 106consultation, but have concurred with a NoEffect Determination under Sec. 106. TheHualapai Tribe commented on impacts tosubsistence hunting resulting from both shortterm effects (game fleeing from aircraftduring hunts) and long-term effects (stresson herds on movement of game out oftraditional hunting areas). The Hualapaistated that “existing studies do not evaluatethe long-term impacts of overflights on BigHorn Sheep.” The Navajo commented onpotential impacts to subsistence sheepherding activities during the Sec. 106consultation as a traditional cultural practice.In this latter situation, FAA through itsFlight Standard District Office is trainingtribal members in procedures for requesting aNOTAM and reporting low-flying aircraft.The Hualapai commented on potentialimpacts to subsistence cattle ranchingactivities during the Sec. 106 consultation asa traditional cultural practice.

Impacts to Non-Native AmericanMinority or Low-Income Populations.FAA has issued public notice and requestedcomments through Federal Register noticesand numerous public hearings at the GrandCanyon, in Phoenix, Las Vegas, St. George,and elsewhere. No comments were receivedfrom other potentially affected EJpopulations. The route structure outside of

the SFRA that might impact EJ populations,other than Native American populations, issimilar to the historic route structure. Nosignificant impacts to non-Native Americanor other minority or low-income populationshave been identified.

4.8 NATIVE AMERICANCOMMUNITIES

Section 3.3 provides a brief description ofthe Native American communities thatinhabit and have ties to the areas aroundGCNP. The Proposed Action or any of theproposed alternatives, with commercial airtour limitations or with continued growth,reduce noise levels over the majority ofNative American areas with the exception ofa few locations, most notably, Hualapai TCPNumber 10. Improvements made bycommercial air tour route alternatives areeroded with continued growth. For the NoAction alternative and the proposedalternatives considered, noise levelsassociated with aircraft activity in andaround the GCNP are substantially belowany established threshold of significantimpact. In addition, the analysis in Section4.1.1 indicates that aircraft noise levelsgenerally would not interfere with normaloutdoor speech communication.

The FAA has made progress towardprotecting Native American resources. Thisis evidenced by refining commercial air tourroutes over Supai Village, as requested bythe Havasupai Tribe. The FAA has alsoexpanded the SFRA boundary and relocatedthe tour routes labeled Black-2 and Green-3five miles east to avoid the confluence of theColorado and Little Colorado Rivers. Thisexpansion to the SFRA provides protectionto sites of importance identified by the

4-41

Navajo Nation, the Hopi, and the Pueblo ofZuni Tribes.

A record of consultation with NativeAmerican Tribes and Nations and a list ofapplicable laws are provided in Appendix H.

4.9 ENDANGERED SPECIES

As discussed in Section 3.7, threeendangered plants and ten endangered animalspecies are found in GCNP and adjoininglands, including the Hualapai Reservation.In addition, five threatened plants, fourthreatened animals, and one experimentalpopulation (treated as threatened) also occurin the study area (see Table 3.1). The NPSis the lead agency for consultation pursuantto Section 7 of the 1973 Endangered SpeciesAct, as amended. NPS initiated formalconsultation for this action by submitting abiological assessment to the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (USFWS) on November 8,1999. A draft biological opinion was sent toFAA and NPS on December 16, 1999. Afterreview by both FAA and NPS, a finalbiological opinion was completed by theUSFWS on January 26, 2000.

In their biological opinion, the USFWSconcurred that the only listed species likelyto be affected by this action were theCalifornia condor, Mexican spotted owl, andbald eagle, which are all treated asthreatened without critical habitat. Thebiological opinion concludes that theProposed Action is not likely to jeopardizethe continued existence of these threespecies, and that no critical habitat exists forthese three species, so none will be affected.However, in accordance with USFWSguidelines, the Proposed Action "is likely toadversely affect" the California condor,Mexican spotted owl, and bald eagle.

According to the biological assessmentprepared by the NPS and the BiologicalOpinion, the potential adverse effects includethe potential for collisions between individualbirds (i.e., California condor and bald eagle)and air tour aircraft on the flight routes andnear the GCNP Airport in Tusayan. Theyalso include harassment, which is definedunder USFWS guidelines as intentional ornegligent actions that create the likelihood ofinjury to wildlife by annoying it to such anextent as to significantly disrupt normalbehavior patterns which include, but are notlimited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering.Low-level flights over habitat for the listedbird species are considered likely to causeharassment.

An incidental take statement was included inthe biological opinion along with terms andconditions implementing reasonable andprudent measures as a condition forexemption of the Proposed Action from theprohibitions of Section 9 of the EndangeredSpecies Act, as amended. The measuresimposed on the FAA and NPS by the termsand conditions in the biological opinioninclude developing and implementing a planto further evaluate and mitigate the impactsof the action on the listed species. This planwould include: a monitoring program tofurther assess the effects of the action on thelisted species, an education/awarenessprogram to help pilots avoid collisions andother impacts on the species, bird avoidancemeasures in the vicinity of GCNP Airport,and an evaluation of the feasibility ofavoiding certain sensitive areas duringsensitive time periods for the species.

On August 25, 1999, the American peregrinefalcon was removed from the list ofendangered and threatened species, so it wasnot detailed in the consultation. A speciespetitioned, but deemed not warranted for

4-42

listing, the northern goshawk, also occurs inthe study area, but because it is not listed italso was not detailed in this consultation.

Although the Desert bighorn sheep is notlisted in Arizona as a federally threatenedspecies, it is a species of special concern tothe Hualapai Tribe. The Hualapai Tribe hasexpressed concerns about single event noiseimpacts as well as long-term exposures andlower level noise events on the Desertbighorn sheep.

The effect of the Proposed Action will be todecrease air traffic in some areas withproportional increases in other airspace thatis currently in use. The proposed actionsmay therefore reduce the potential for birdstrikes in the SFRA.

Literature on flight altitudes for condors andperegrines is limited; however, discussionswith raptor observers indicate that peregrinesmay soar at 3,000 feet or higher whenhunting.52 Although condors and falconshave the ability to climb as high as 10,000 to20,000 feet and sometimes as high as 25,000feet, observers find that these species aretypically not flocking by nature and oftenmigrate at altitudes lower than 3,000 feet.

The only new area where flights will be lessthan 500 feet above ground level would beover the North Rim between the Dragon andZuni Point Corridors; however, this is not anarea of high activity for any of these species.Other areas with flights at such low levelswould remain the same as under the NoAction alternative, such as over the SouthRim, where collisions, if any, are most likelyto occur. The vast majority of all the flightroutes are over areas of the canyon whereflight altitudes are much greater than 500feet AGL. Research completed for the FAAon potential bird hazards found that

approximately 98% of bird strikes involvingraptors occurred at less than 500 feet AGL.53

The USFWS biological opinion concurredwith the NPS determination in the biologicalassessment that the Proposed Action is “notlikely to adversely affect” the desert tortoise,Hualapai Mexican vole, black-footed ferret,southwestern willow flycatcher, or the Yumaclapper rail. The NPS biological assessmentconcluded that there would be no effect tothe fifteen listed plant and aquatic species.

Requirements of a biological assessment or abiological opinion are to address listedspecies and their critical habitat; therefore,candidate species species and other sensitivespecies were not addressed in thosedocuments. However, consistent with theabove determinations, of the speciesdiscussed in Section 3.7.2, the proposedactions are considered by the NPS to havethe potential for effects only upon thefollowing species: recently delisted(American peregrine falcon); consideredsensitive by the Hualapai Tribe (Desertbighorn sheep, eagles, raptors, mule deer,pronghorn antelope); other sensitive species(northern goshawk, ferruginous hawk).

Recent monitoring of peregrine falcons(including their eyries) by the NPS suggeststhat they have abandoned eyries in flightcorridors; however, further studies will benecessary before any conclusions can bereached regarding the nature or cause of thismonitoring observation. The NPS will beconducting such studies. Previous studiesconducted elsewhere have suggested thatperegrines may be more tolerant of noise andvisual stimuli than other raptor species.

Golden eagles and other raptors are alsoknown to fly at altitudes over the study areathat may include the flight routes, indicating

4-43

a possibility for occasional bird strikes.While bird strikes have occurred in the studyarea, they were considered not significantenough to report to the FAA (61 FR 54044).The incidental take statement in thebiological opinion anticipates no more thanone collision in five years of a bald eagle orCalifornia condor with an aircraft in theSFRA; the potential for collisions with non-listed eagles and other raptor species isexpected to be similar.

According to the NPS biological assessment,although aircraft may startle or momentarilyalter the behavior of individual animals, thereis no evidence that animal populations ortheir habitats in the Grand Canyon area havebeen negatively impacted by the existing airtour operations. Responses of animals tooverflights vary greatly among species, andthe ability of different species to adapt tooverflights also varies. In general, the long-term effects of aircraft overflights on wildlifeare unclear. The majority of studies onwildlife responses to overflights suggest thatresponses appear to be temporary and do notresult in long-term effects to animalpopulation numbers or habitat use.Therefore, other than occasional bird strikes,based upon the best available informationand the nature of the proposed actions as astep in reducing the effects of aircraft noiseupon the study area, the potential for theproposed actions to adversely affect thewildlife species in the study area appears tobe limited to temporary behavioralmodifications in limited areas. These areasprimarily include those limited portions ofthe flight routes over the forested areas onthe South Rim and North Rim wherehelicopters fly at 500 feet or less aboveground level, and a portion of the helicopterroutes in the vicinity of Grand Canyon West.

As part of its monitoring program, the NPSwill also continue to monitor such potentialeffects on Desert bighorn sheep, peregrinefalcons and other wildlife species, as well ason the listed species. If any additionalimpacts are found as part of this monitoringprogram, they will be addressed as asubsequent step in the process of achievingsubstantial restoration of natural quiet in theGCNP.

4.10 AIR QUALITY

The thresholds of significant impacts to airquality relate to conformity of the ProposedAction with the State Implementation Plan(SIP), and to the potential for the ProposedAction or any of the proposed alternatives toexceed National Ambient Air QualityStandards (NAAQS) for any criteriapollutant. The GCNP is an attainment areafor all criteria pollutants.

The Proposed Action, which includes anoperations limitation, is projected to maintaintotal aviation activity at 1997/1998 levelsrelative to the No Action alternative.Accordingly, the Proposed Action would notincrease emissions due to aircraft operationswhen compared to the No Action alternative.This outcome would clearly be inconformance with the SIP. Emissions underthe No Action alternative would be no worsethan with any of the alternatives.

The EPA, in issuing the final rule onDetermining Conformity of General FederalActions to State or Federal ImplementationPlans under Section 176(c) of the Clean AirAct, identified “de minimis” emissions levels,which do not require a conformitydetermination. The EPA also identifiedFederal actions, which are de minimis innature. In the preamble to that final rule, theEPA stated that air traffic control activities

4-44

and adopting approach, departure, and enroute procedures for air operations are deminimis actions, exempt from conformitydeterminations requirements.

4.11 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

CEQ 1508.7 states that cumulative impact isthe effect on the environment, which resultsfrom the incremental impact of the ProposedAction when added to other past, present,and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Inthis way, the cumulative impacts which resultfrom individually minor, but collectivelysignificant, actions occurring over a periodof time may be examined.

The cumulative impacts of the followingtypes of actions should be considered in thepreparation of an environmentalassessment:54

1. Actions which are closely related andshould be discussed in the same NEPAdocument. Actions are connected if theymeet one or more of the followingcriteria:

• Actions which automatically triggerother actions which may require thepreparation of an environmentalimpact statement.

• Actions which cannot or will notproceed unless other actions aretaken previously or simultaneously.

• Actions which are interdependentparts of a larger action and dependon the larger actions for theirjustification.

2. Cumulative actions, when consideredwith other proposed actions, havecumulatively significantly impacts and

should therefore be discussed in the sameNEPA document.

3. Similar actions which are similarities,

such as timing or location, with otherreasonably foreseeable or ProposedActions that provide a basis forevaluating their environmental impacts inthe same NEPA document.

The previous analyses indicate that there isvery little potential for adverse impact, giventhe relatively low noise levels in the studyarea. The potential for cumulative impacts islimited to local areas, which wouldexperience increased noise levels as a resultof implementation of the final rule with thePreferred Alternative. Overall, however,because the number of commercial air toursoperations is being limited, the SFRA willnot experience increased noise levels.

A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for theestablishment of noise limitations for aircraftoperations in the vicinity of the GCNP(transition to quiet technology), was issuedin December 1996 accompanied by a DraftEA. A quiet technology rulemaking has notbeen finalized but is expected to provide anet benefit impact upon implementation.The Noise Limitations/ Quiet Technologyfinal rule will be analyzed in an EA, whichwill consider the cumulative impacts of theair tour routes, final SFAR boundary, FFZs,implementation of the 1996 curfew andaircraft cap and this proposed action toimplement a commercial air tour limitation. Grand Canyon West Airport is located in thevicinity of the Proposed Action andalternatives. Based upon the current lowlevel of airport operations, potentiallysignificant cumulative noise or otherenvironmental impacts are not anticipated.

4-45

The FAA is aware that the Hualapai Tribeplans to further develop Grand CanyonWest; however, these plans are conceptual innature. The plans are described as follows:

Grand Canyon West Airport: TheHualapai Tribe plans to expand thedevelopment at Grand Canyon West,including moving the airstrip back fromthe rim. Most of the air tours on Green-4 land at Grand Canyon West or onHualapai lands near the Colorado Riverbelow Grand Canyon West.

The development is contemplated, but notyet proposed. As such, the development istoo uncertain and far in the future for itsimpacts to be reasonably foreseen andanalyzed along with the Proposed Action andalternatives. The Proposed Action, whichwill proceed independently, is not related tofuture development of Grand Canyon West. Any proposal to relocate and expand GrandCanyon West, including potential cumulativeimpacts of airport operations along with airtour operations and the potential forexpansion of the airport to increase use ofthe tour routes, will be subject toenvironmental review by the Hualapai Tribe.FAA will also participate or conductappropriate environmental review if a grantof federal funds is contemplated. The FAA is aware of US Forest Serviceintentions for proceeding with a landexchange and plans to develop recreational,commercial and residential facilities betweenTusayan and the GCNP boundary.

4.12 OTHER IMPACTCATEGORIES

The Environmental Consequences “sectionforms the scientific and analytic basis for thecomparisons” in the alternatives section.55

FAA Order 1050.1D advises, in essence, thatspecific environmental impact areas shouldbe discussed “as much as is necessary tosupport the comparisons [of alternatives].”56

Accordingly, an early review of the potentialenvironmental impacts was conducted toguide the development of the environmentalconsequences section. This review indicatedthat most impact categories typicallyevaluated in an environmental assessmentwould not be affected by any of thealternatives. Scoping comments confirmedthat this review was reasonable. Therefore,the following impact categories were notanalyzed in detail: • Coastal Zone • Floodplains• Water Quality • Farmland• Wetlands • Solid Waste• Coastal Barriers • Bird Hazard• Compatible Land Use • Energy/Natural Resources• Biotic Communities • Construction• Light Emissions

4.13 MITIGATION

Pursuant to the mitigation and monitoringprogram agreed to in the PA signed inJanuary 2000, the FAA will provide bothfinancial and technical assistance to theHualapai Tribe. The FAA has and willcontinue to protect any confidentialityrequested by the Tribes to limit public accessand preserve the character and integrity ofsacred sites.

4-46

Pursuant to Section 7 of the EndangeredSpecies Act, and in accordance with theBiological Opinion of USFWS, NPS willinitiate a monitoring program which willassess long-term impacts for the three (3)listed species likely to be adversely effectedand other species of concern.

1

Notes

1 NPS Report to Congress on the Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park System, July 1995, p. 182.2 FAA Order 1050.1D, Par 64, 1986..3 Ibid.4 National Park Service General Management Plan DEIS, p.155; Note that a GMP Final EIS was completed and a

Record of Decision (ROD) issued in August 1995.5 National Park Service General Management Plan, pp. 141-145 and comments provided by the Hualapai in

memoranda dated May 19, and June 1, 1999.6 Kaibab National Forest Final EIS, August 6,1999.7 National Park Service General Management Plan DEIS, p. 157.8 National Park Service General Management Plan DEIS, Management Zones map, p. 15.9 National Park Service General Management Plan DEIS, p. 4.10 Ibid., p. 48.11 Ibid., p. 6.12 Ibid., p. 154.13 Grand Canyon West, Economic Development Concept Presentation, December 1998.14 National Park Service General Management Plan DEIS, pg. 146.15 Ibid.16 Ibid., p. 148.17 Ibid.18 Ibid., p. 140.19 Ibid.20 Ibid., p. 141.21 Ibid.22 Ibid.23 Ibid.24 Ibid.25 By letter dated June 4, 1999, to Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt, the Vice Chairman of the Hualapai Tribe

asked the Secretary to revise the NPS recommendations under Pub. L. 100-91 to address the actions necessary toprotect tribal resources in the Grand Canyon from adverse impacts associated with aircraft overflights and todrop the residential noise standard for tribal lands used in the Draft SEA as unsupported and adopt a two-tieredstandard like the standard adopted for the GCNP. See, Notice, Change in Noise Evaluation Methodology forAir Tour Operations Over Grand Canyon National Park, 64 Fed. Reg. 3969, January 26, 1999. NPS declined toapply the two-tiered noise thresholds developed for GCNP to tribal lands for reasons explained in Change inNoise Evaluation Methodology for Air Tour Operations over the GCNP, Notice of Disposition of PublicComments and Adoption of Final Noise Methodology, Discussion of Comments, Response 4, Tribal TrustResources, 64 Fed. Reg. 38006, 38008-9, July 14, 1999.

2

26 During discussions to amend the SOW, the parties consulted with a representative of the Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation. The Advisory Council representative advised that the Preferred Alternative should beaddressed separately from the Comprehensive Aircraft Noise Management Plan because it was too soon to enterinto an agreement concerning the Plan. FAA proposed use of a Memorandum of Agreement for the PreferredAlternative. FAA suggested that TCPs unknown when the Phase II study is completed could be addressed usingthe provisions for after-discovered properties under NHPA Section 106 regulations. The Tribe indicated thatstudies to identify TCPs in the entire APE of the Reservation had to be completed before it would agree thatFAA could rely upon the provisions for “after-discovered properties.” However, the Tribe agreed to consider acombination MOA/PA document. FAA agreed to include provisions in the SOW for further identification ofTCPs in the remainder of the APE. FAA also advised that FAA planned to use three decibel changes in noise asthe criteria for identifying the potential for adverse effects.

27 Ibid., p. 4.28 Phillips et al, 1987.29 National Park Service General Management Plan DEIS, p. 4.30 Sender ([email protected]) (1999, April 29). Endangered Species List. E-mail to Fred

Bankert ([email protected]); USDOI Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Field Officeletter, dated November 13, 1996, and National Park Service General Management Plan DEIS, pg. 135.

31 FAA Order 1050.1D, par. 65(b).32 National Park Service Report To Congress, Figure 9-4, p. 191.33 Ibid., Figure 9-3, p. 190.34 Ibid., p. 175.35 National Park Service General Management Plan, pp. 157-158.36 USDA Forest Service Tusayan Growth EIS and Record of Decision, 199937 Previous sections discuss this objective and note that it is the primary motivation for the rule.38 “Actively listening” means the sole task of the observer is to listen for the presence of aircraft.39 Note that the noise heard on the ground is a function of both the source noise and the propagation path from the

source to the receiver, so specifying source noise is not equivalent to specifying the noise a listener hears.40 ATC does not count overflights as operations. On the other hand, ATC counts circuits as two operations (each

circuit has a departure and an arrival). The Activity Report counts the number of commercial air tour routesflown, not the number of takeoff and landings. For example, an air tour which enters the SFRA on Black 2,overflies Cape Solitude and Nankoweap Rapids on Black 1, and exits the SFRA on Black 3 counts as 3operations in the Activity Report, as one operation (an overflight) in the INM, and is not counted at all by AirTraffic Control at GCN.

41 The INM profile generator was used for all aircraft except the three helicopter types and the DHC-6, asexplained above.

42 The INM profile generator is based on recommendations found in the Society of Automotive Engineers’Aerospace Information Report 1845 (SAE AIR 1845). It presents an empirical method for computing aircraftposition and performance, using a set of aerodynamic and engine coefficients unique to each aircraft model.These coefficients, along with the standard procedure for each aircraft exist in INM as an automated profilegeneration utility.

43 Portions of the representative locations provided by the Hualapai Tribe and THPO are within the boundaries ofthe 40 TCPs identified by the Tribe and THPO in the December 15, 1999 List. 5 of the TCPs are in the vicinityof Blue-2 and Green-4. These sites would experience the same impacts under the No Action Alternative asunder the exception in the Operational Limitations proposed Final Rule. 27 of the TCPs are located in the

3

vicinity of those routes or portions of routes proposed for elimination. These sites will either experience adecrease in noise or will be neutrally affected by the elimination of Blue-1, Blue-1A, Blue-2A and that portion ofBlue-2 and Green-4 southeast of Separation Canyon. 2 of the sites, specifically Grand Canyon and the ColoradoRiver will experience an overall decrease in noise with the Preferred Alternative. The remaining 6 sites arelocated near Blue Direct North and the modified Blue Direct South.routes.

44 During consultation, the Hualapai Tribe objected to the FAA’s use of the No Action Alternative as a baseline toevaluate effects and use of three-decibel changes in noise to assess when noise increases were potentiallyadverse.

45 NPRM, p. 5.46 FAA Order 1050.1D, Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, Change 4, Attachment 2,

para. 5b(4), June 1999; DOT Order 5610.1C, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, Attachment2, para. 5e; 23 CFR 771.135(p).

47 In general, changes in sound level of three or four decibels are barely perceptible. Aviation Noise Effects, FAAReport FAA-EEE-85-2. Three decibel changes in noise represent a doubling of sound energy, are clearlynoticeable, and at cumulative noise levels between DNL 60 dB and DNL 65 dB, suggest a need for furtheranalysis to consideration of alternative mitigation measures. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise, August1992, Federal Agency Review of Selected Noise Analysis, page 3-6, 3-15-3-16 (clarify Technical or PolicyChapter). See also, 23 CFR 771.135(p))(FHWA Section 4(f) Constructive Use).

48 The Hualapai Department of Cultural Resources did not provide specific geographic coordinates to allowmodeling for all of the TCPs that were identified during the Section 106 process. Comparable representativelocations in Section 4.1 indicate that the Hualapai Reservation will experience either a decrease or no change innoise from the Preferred Alternative.

49 Aviation Noise Effects, FAA Report FAA-EEE-85-2.50 Bioastronautics Data Book, Second Edition, NASA SP-3006, 1973.51 The Hualapai Tribe and THPO declined to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that could have

included provisions to address unknown TCPs as after-discovered properties. Rather than seek comment of theAdvisory Council on Historic Preservation, the FAA entered into a Programmatic Agreement that called forfurther identification of all TCPs in the APE. See also Section 3.6.4.

52 Expanded East Coast Plan FEIS, USDOT FAA, 1995, Page 5-67.53 Harrison, Michael J., Assessment of Potential Bird Hazards Houston West Side Airport, Table 6, April 3, 1989.54 Paragraph 26 of FAA Order 5050.4A, Airport Environmental Handbook, Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ) Regulations sec. 1508.25.55 CEQ Regulations Sec. 1502.16.56 FAA Order 1050.1D, par. 66, p. 38.

5-1

Chapter FiveLIST OF PREPARERS

Listed below are employees of the FederalAviation Administration (FAA) who areresponsible for the preparation of the DraftSupplemental Environmental Assessment(EA). Supporting the FAA, DOI NPS andNative American Tribes and Nations in thiseffort are individuals from VOLPE NationalTransportation Systems Center, PRC, Inc.,and HNTB Corporation.

FEDERAL AVIATIONADMINISTRATION

William J. Marx

B.S., Adelphi University, 1985; UnitedStates Marine Corps, 1965-69, VietnamVeteran; Began FAA career in 1970; AirTraffic Controller and Area Supervisor, JohnF. Kennedy Tower; Assistant Air TrafficManager and Air Traffic Manager,LaGuardia Tower; Operations Specialist,Section Supervisor and Special ProjectOfficer, FAA Eastern Region Air TrafficDivision; and Program Manager, CivilOperations, Office of Air Traffic SystemManagement. Program Manager,Environmental Issues, Office of Air TrafficSystem Management, 1992 to Present.

Reginald C. Matthews

Acting Manager, Airspace-Rules Division.Prior experience, Manager, Air Traffic RulesBranch; Assistant Air Traffic Manager,Washington National ATCT; Manager,National Flight Data Center; Air TrafficRules Specialist, FAA Washington

Headquarters; Area Supervisor, West PalmBeach International ATCT; Plans &Programs Specialist; Military LiaisonSpecialist, San Juan, P.R. CERAP; AirTraffic Controller in Austin, Texas, FortWalton Beach, Florida, Fayetteville, NorthCarolina, St. Petersburg, Florida,Tallahassee, Florida, Republic of Panama,and Republic of Korea.

Ernestine Hunter

FAA Air Traffic Control EnvironmentalIssues Specialist, Office of Air TrafficSystem Management, 1991 to present. Hasserved as an air traffic controller inMinneapolis, Cleveland and Washington AirRoute Traffic Control Centers. Also workedas an air traffic specialist in the Airspace &Procedures, Plans & Programs and TrafficManagement Offices in Washington ARTCCenter. Began career with FAA in 1977.Responsible for technical review of EA.

Jake A. Plante

M.Ed., Ed.d., Education, University ofMassachusetts, 1975 and 1977. Manager,Analysis and Evaluation Branch of the Officeof Environment and Energy (AEE-120),1992 to present. He joined the FAA in 1985and worked for three years in the OperationsResearch Office. Prior to the FAA, heserved as: Government Relations Specialistfor the U.S. Department of Energy, and asDirector of the Franklin County, MA,Energy Office.

5-2

Ann M. Hooker

Environmental Protection Specialist (FAANEPA Liaison), Office of Environment andEnergy, FAA, Washington, DC. B.A.(geology), Colorado College, 1972; M.S.(joint geography and education), Universityof Oregon, 1974; M. Forest Science, Yale,1981; Doctor of Forestry and EnvironmentalStudies, Yale, 1992; and J.D., University ofNew Mexico, 1992. Dr. Hooker was theLead Articles Editor, Natural ResourcesJournal (law review), 1991-92 and hasauthored several law review articles. She isalso a member of Sigma Xi ScientificHonorary Society, member of the NewMexico State Bar, the DC Bar, the ColoradoState Bar, the Bar Association of DC, andthe American Bar Association. Prior tojoining the FAA in 1994, Dr. Hooker was apolicy analyst with the U.S.D.A. ForestService, serving on an extended detail in theU.S.D.A. Office of General Counsel as partof the northern spotted owl EIS litigationteam. At the FAA, Dr. Hooker is the FAANEPA Liaison as well as the Federal HistoricPreservation Officer, and Co-coordinator forEnvironmental Justice. She serves as Chairof the Headquarters Environmental Networkand Liaison to the Regional EnvironmentalNetworks within FAA and represents FAAon several Federal interagency committeesconcerned with environmental policy. She isalso responsible for maintaining the advancedNEPA training course at the FAA Academy.

VOLPE NATIONALTRANSPORTATION SYSTEMSCENTER

Gregg G. Fleming

B.S., Electrical Engineering, University ofLowell, MA. Has over nine years experience

in all aspects of transportation-related noise.As manager of the Acoustics Facility, he isresponsible for the design and developmentof the Grand Canyon Integrated NoiseModel (GCINM), and the conduct of thenoise modeling and analysis in support of theGrand Canyon Environmental Assessment.

David Senzig

M.S. Mechanical Engineering, University ofWashington, Seattle, WA. Thirteen years ofexperience with aircraft performance andnoise. As a member of the AcousticsFacility, he is responsible for the conduct ofthe noise modeling and analysis in support ofthe Grand Canyon EnvironmentalAssessment.

John R. D’Aprile

B.S., Physics, Boston College, MA. Over 11years experience in aircraft noise modelingand noise model development. As a memberof the Acoustics Facility, he is responsiblefor the conduct of the noise modeling andanalysis in support of the Grand CanyonEnvironmental Assessment.

Paul G. Gerbi

B.S., Electrical Engineering, University ofLowell, MA. Over 15 years experience insoftware design and programming. As co-developer of the Integrated Noise Model(INM), he is responsible for the design anddevelopment of the Grand CanyonIntegrated Noise Model (GCINM).

5-3

PRC, INC.

Fred B. Bankert

M.S., Financial Management, NavalPostgraduate School; B.S., IndustrialEngineering, Lehigh University. Mr.Bankert has over twenty-eight years ofexperience in all phases of environmental andfacility planning, acquisition andmanagement. He has been project managerfor three major environmental studies, sixfacility planning studies and numerous othersmaller projects. As Project Manager, he hasrecently completed an EIS for the FAA toassess the impact of air traffic changesresulting from the controversial ExpandedEast Coast Plan. Previously, he directed theeffort to develop the first-ever TieredProgrammatic Environmental ImpactStatement for the Navy Department. Mr.Bankert was the Director of FacilitiesManagement and Environment in the Officeof Airspace, Airfields and Air TrafficControl, Assistant Chief of Naval OperationsAir Warfare. He also directed theimplementation of the Navy's AirInstallations Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ)program at Naval Air Stations, and directedthe AICUZ study for Naval Air Station CecilField in Jacksonville, FL, where hecoordinated with local government agencies,presented the Navy position at publicmeetings, and interfaced with NavyDepartment staff developing revised flighttracks and noise contours.

HNTB CORPORATION

Kimberly C. Hughes, P.E.

B.S., Civil Engineering, Virginia PolytechnicInstitute and State University, 1985. SeniorAirport Environmental Planner and Project

Manger, HNTB Corp. ProfessionalEngineer. Eight years of aviation design,construction management and environmentalplanning experience. Experience inpreparing environmental assessments,environmental impact statements and Part150 studies. Experience emphasis has beenin air quality, water quality, wetlands, andaviation noise impacts. Prior to aviationexperience, worked in area of landdevelopment as project engineer. Majoremphasis of experience in stormwatermanagement and water quality issues andresidential land development. Responsiblefor NEPA documentation.

Mylinda H. Green

B.A., English, Mary Washington College,1994. Technical Editor, HNTB Corp. Eightyears of editorial experience. Responsiblefor technical editing of the document.

APPENDIX A

NOISE RESULTS

This appendix presents noise results summarized in Section 4.1.

A-1

Table A.1

Comparison of LAeq12h at Representative Locations in GCNPNorth of Colorado River, West of GC Airport

1998

No Action(Alt. 1)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Location LAeq12h LAeq12h Difference LAeq12h Difference LAeq12h Difference1 NPS Admin Site (ADMIN) 37.5 32.2 -5.3 31.0 -6.5 31.7 -5.8

2 Andrus Canyon (ANDRUS) 24.5 18.8 -5.7 26.3 1.8 17.9 -6.6

3 Bass Camp (BASCMP) 21.4 22.1 0.7 21.8 0.4 21.7 0.3

4 Bat Cave (BATCAV) 39.4 41.2 1.8 40.8 1.4 40.8 1.4

5 Burnt Springs Canyon (BRNTSP) 39.5 41.9 2.4 41.5 2.0 41.6 2.1

6 Castle Peak (CASTLE) 31.0 23.7 -7.3 42.9 11.9 23.2 -7.8

7 Kanab Point (KANAPT) 17.3 9.8 -7.5 9.6 -7.7 9.1 -8.2

8 Kelly Point (KELLPT) 16.1 15.1 -1.0 14.1 -2.0 25.3 9.2

9 Mt. Dellenbaugh (MTDELL) 42.8 42.1 -0.7 26.4 -16.4 41.7 -1.1

10 Point Sublime (PTSUBL) 30.9 31.3 0.4 31.0 0.1 31.0 0.1

11 Sanup (SANUP) 38.5 39.0 0.5 32.7 -5.8 39.2 0.7

12 Separation Canyon at ColoradoRiver (SCCORV)

27.0 16.3 -10.7 15.5 -11.5 34.1 7.1

13 Separation Canyon (SEPARC) 25.2 15.9 -9.3 15.1 -10.1 32.2 7.0

14 Shivwitz Fire Camp (SHWZFC) 38.5 38.4 -0.1 27.4 -11.1 38.0 -0.5

15 Stone Creek (STONCK) 28.7 14.6 -14.1 14.3 -14.4 14.1 -14.6

16 Suicide Point (SUIPNT) 29.2 38.9 9.7 38.5 9.3 23.0 -6.2

17 Toroweap Overlook (TOROWP) 32.5 16.2 -16.3 17.7 -14.8 15.0 -17.5

18 Tower of Ra (TOWER) 45.9 42.0 -3.9 41.7 -4.2 41.7 -4.2

19 Twin Point (TWINPT) 32.5 34.4 1.9 34.1 1.6 28.4 -4.1

20 Upper Deer Creek (UPDRCK) 17.3 12.3 -5.0 12.0 -5.3 11.8 -5.5

21 West End (WESEND) 37.3 34.8 -2.5 33.8 -3.5 34.5 -2.8

A-2

Table A.2

Comparison of LAeq12h at Representative Locations in GCNPSouth of Colorado River, West of GC Airport

1998

No Action(Alt. 1)


Location LAeq12h LAeq12h Difference LAeq12h Difference LAeq12h Difference22 Coyote Canyon (COYCAN) 32.3 15.1 -17.2 15.3 -17.0 14.0 -18.3

23 Diamond Creek (DIACRK) 26.4 12.7 -13.7 11.8 -14.6 32.7 6.3

24 The Dome (DOME) 34.7 14.8 -19.9 15.1 -19.6 13.6 -21.1

25 Granite Gorge (GRAGOR) 42.1 40.3 -1.8 39.7 -2.4 37.6 -4.5

26 Grand Canyon West (GCWEST) 40.3 32.8 -7.5 32.2 -8.1 30.9 -9.4

27 Granite Park (GRNTPK) 29.1 29.7 0.6 29.1 0.0 20.9 -8.2

28 Gus Plateau (GUSPLT) 27.7 42.8 15.1 42.5 14.8 24.9 -2.8

29 Havasu Point (HAVAPT) 28.5 12.2 -16.3 12.1 -16.4 11.3 -17.2

30 Havatagvitch Canyon (HAVCAN) 40.5 19.2 -21.3 19.2 -21.3 18.3 -22.2

31 Hermit Basin (HBASIN) 39.8 34.0 -5.8 33.7 -6.1 33.6 -6.2

32 Horse Flat Canyon (HFCAN) 27.0 22.5 -4.5 22.0 -5.0 22.6 -4.4

33 Meriwhitca (MERIWH) 28.2 14.4 -13.8 13.7 -14.5 17.4 -10.8

34 Mohawk Canyon (MOHAWK) 25.5 21.6 -3.9 23.4 -2.1 20.5 -5.0

35 Mohawk Canyon (MOHCAN) 30.2 19.0 -11.2 20.3 -9.9 17.8 -12.4

36 Mount Sinyala (MTSINY) 45.6 12.2 -33.4 12.1 -33.5 11.3 -34.3

37 National Canyon (NATCAN) 26.0 18.2 -7.8 19.0 -7.0 16.9 -9.1

38 Jackson Canyon (JCKCAN/NONAME) 38.5 24.3 -14.2 23.9 -14.6 25.2 -13.3

39 Parashant Wash (PARWAS) 34.4 34.6 0.2 29.4 -5.0 34.1 -0.3

40 Pumpkin Springs (PMPKIN) 18.8 20.3 1.5 19.3 0.5 18.8 0.0

41 Prospect Canyon (PROCAN) 42.4 19.8 -22.6 22.5 -19.9 18.7 23.7

42 Prospect Canyon (PRSPCT) 30.8 24.9 -5.9 29.5 -1.3 24.0 -6.8

43 Peach Spring Canyon North (PSCNNO) 27.0 11.9 -15.1 11.0 -16.0 37.4 10.4

44 Peach Spring Canyon South (PSCNSO) 7.9 7.7 -0.2 7.0 -0.9 15.9 8.0

45 Quartermaster Point (QMPNT) 39.4 34.8 -4.6 34.4 -5.0 34.4 -5.0

46 The Ranch (RANCH) 31.8 37.8 6.0 37.4 5.6 37.4 5.6

47 Spencer/Meriwhitica Canyons (SCMCIG) 27.8 13.4 -14.4 12.6 -15.2 29.3 1.5

48 South Supai Canyon (SOSUPC) 30.9 32.9 2.0 34.0 3.1 31.7 0.8

49 Spencer Canyon (SPENCA) 29.4 14.7 -14.7 14.0 -15.4 20.8 -8.6

50 Supai Village (SUPVIL) 31.7 14.5 -17.2 14.4 -17.3 13.6 -18.1

51 Three Springs Rapids (THRSPR) 17.2 18.7 1.5 17.7 0.5 19.4 2.2

52 Whitmore Rapids (WHTRAP) 38.7 24.1 -14.6 33.2 -5.5 23.2 -15.5

53 96 Mile Camp (96MILE) 40.7 36.1 -4.6 35.8 -4.9 35.8 -4.9

A-3

Table A.3

Comparison of LAeq12h at Representative Locations in GCNPNorth of Colorado River, East of GC Airport

1998

No Action(Alt. 1)


Location LAeq12h LAeq12h Difference LAeq12h Difference LAeq12h Difference54 The Basin (BASIN) 36.5 27.2 -9.3 26.9 -9.6 26.9 -9.6

55 Bright Angel Point (BRTANG) 25.1 23.3 -1.8 23.0 -2.1 22.9 -2.2

56 Cape Royal (CAPROY) 23.2 26.5 3.3 26.2 3.0 26.2 3.0

57 Cliff Dwellers Lodge (CLDWEL) 15.2 19.7 4.5 19.4 4.2 19.4 4.2

58 Marble Canyon Dam Site (MARBDM) 21.1 17.0 -4.1 16.6 -4.5 16.6 -4.5

59 Nankoweap Mesa (NANMES) 41.2 25.0 -16.2 24.4 -16.8 24.4 -16.8

60 North Canyon (NOCANY) 29.7 22.1 -7.6 21.8 -7.9 21.8 -7.9

61 Point Imperial (PTIMPL) 34.8 24.1 -10.7 23.6 -11.2 23.6 -11.2

62 Saddle Mountain (SADMTN) 28.3 37.0 8.7 36.6 8.3 36.6 8.3

63 South Canyon (SOCAN) 25.8 16.8 -9.0 16.5 -9.3 16.5 -9.3

64 Temple Butte (TEMBUT) 37.5 29.4 -8.1 28.8 -8.7 28.8 -8.7

Table A.4

Comparison of LAeq12h at Representative Locations in GCNPSouth of Colorado River, East of GC Airport

1998

No Action(Alt. 1)


Location LAeq12h LAeq12h Difference LAeq12h Difference LAeq12h Difference65 Cedar Ridge (CEDRIG) 27.6 28.4 0.8 28.1 0.5 28.0 0.4

66 Lipan Point (LIPAN) 30.2 35.6 5.4 35.3 5.1 35.3 5.1

67 Little Colorado (LITCOL) 24.8 16.9 -7.9 16.5 -8.3 16.5 -8.3

68 Little Colorado River (LTCORV) 36.8 24.7 -12.1 23.9 -12.9 23.9 -12.9

69 Nankoweap at river (NANRIV) 35.8 21.2 -14.6 20.7 -15.1 20.7 -15.1

70 Ten X Meadow (TENMED) 35.8 43.1 7.3 42.9 7.1 42.9 7.1

71 Zuni Alpha (ZUNALF) 34.6 38.5 3.9 38.2 3.6 38.2 3.6

72 Zuni Charlie (ZUNCHR) 27.6 23.5 -4.1 23.1 -4.5 23.1 -4.5

A-4

Table A.5

Comparison of LAeq12h at Representative Locations in GCNPConsidering Commercial Air Tour LimitationsNorth of Colorado River, West of GC Airport

2000

No Action(Alt. 1)




3 Bass Camp (BASCMP) 21.7 21.7 0.0 21.8 0.1 21.7 0.0

4 Bat Cave (BATCAV) 39.7 41.0 1.3 40.9 1.2 40.9 1.2






10 Point Sublime (PTSUBL) 31.2 31.0 -0.2 31.0 -0.2 31.0 -0.2

11 Sanup (SANUP) 38.8 38.6 -0.2 32.7 -6.1 39.2 0.4

12 Separation Canyon at Colorado River(SCCORV)

27.3 16.0 -11.3 15.6 -11.7 34.1 6.8






18 Tower of Ra (TOWER) 46.2 41.7 -4.5 41.7 -4.5 41.7 -4.5



21 West End (WESEND) 37.6 34.6 -3.0 34.6 -3.0 35.2 -2.4

A-5

Table A.6

Comparison of LAeq12h at Representative Locations in GCNPConsidering Commercial Air Tour LimitationsSouth of Colorado River, West of GC Airport

2000

No Action(Alt. 1)




24 The Dome (DOME) 35 14.5 -20.5 15.1 -19.9 13.6 -21.4



27 Granite Park (GRNTPK) 29.4 29.4 0.0 29.1 -0.3 20.9 -8.5












39 Parashant Wash (PARWAS) 34.7 34.3 -0.4 29.4 -5.3 34.1 -0.6

40 Pumpkin Springs (PMPKIN) 19.1 20.0 0.9 19.3 0.2 18.8 -0.3

41 Prospect Canyon (PROCAN) 42.6 19.5 -23.1 22.5 -20.1 18.7 -23.9





46 The Ranch (RANCH) 32 37.4 5.4 37.4 5.4 37.4 5.4






52 Whitmore Rapids (WHTRAP) 39 23.8 -15.2 33.2 -5.8 23.2 -15.8

53 96 Mile Camp (96MILE) 41 35.8 -5.2 35.8 -5.2 35.8 -5.2

A-6

Table A.7

Comparison of LAeq12h at Representative Locations in GCNPConsidering Commercial Air Tour LimitationsNorth of Colorado River, East of GC Airport

2000

No Action(Alt. 1)









61 Point Imperial (PTIMPL) 35 23.6 -11.4 23.6 -11.4 23.6 -11.4




Table A.8

Comparison of LAeq12h at Representative Locations in GCNPConsidering Commercial Air Tour LimitationsSouth of Colorado River, East of GC Airport

2000

No Action(Alt. 1)










A-7

Table A.9

Comparison of LAeq12h at Representative Locations in GCNPConsidering Continued Growth

North of Colorado River, West of GC Airport2000

No Action(Alt. 1)




3 Bass Camp (BASCMP) 21.7 22.1 0.4 22.1 0.4 22.0 0.3

4 Bat Cave (BATCAV) 39.7 41.2 1.5 41.2 1.5 41.2 1.5







11 Sanup (SANUP) 38.8 39.0 0.2 33.0 -5.8 39.5 0.7


27.3 16.3 -11.0 15.9 -11.4 34.4 7.1






18 Tower of Ra (TOWER) 46.2 42.0 -4.2 42.0 -4.2 42.0 -4.2



21 West End (WESEND) 37.6 34.8 -2.8 34.7 -2.9 35.4 -2.2

A-8

Table A.10


South of Colorado River, West of GC Airport2000

No Action(Alt. 1)




24 The Dome (DOME) 35.0 14.8 -20.2 15.4 -19.6 14.0 -21.0






















46 The Ranch (RANCH) 32.0 37.8 5.8 37.8 5.8 37.7 5.7







53 96 Mile Camp (96MILE) 41.0 36.1 -4.9 36.1 -4.9 36.1 -4.9

A-9

Table A.11


North of Colorado River, East of GC Airport2000

No Action(Alt. 1)













Table A.12


South of Colorado River, East of GC Airport2000

No Action(Alt. 1)





68 Little Colorado River (LTCORV) 37.1 24.7 -12.4 24.7 -12.4 24.7 .12.4





A-10

Table A.13


2003

No Action(Alt. 1)




3 Bass Camp (BASCMP) 22.1 21.7 -0.4 21.8 -0.3 21.7 -0.4

4 Bat Cave (BATCAV) 40.1 41.0 0.9 40.9 0.8 40.9 0.8







11 Sanup (SANUP) 39.2 38.6 -0.6 32.8 -6.4 39.2 0.0


27.7 16.0 -11.7 15.6 -12.1 34.1 6.4






18 Tower of Ra (TOWER) 46.6 41.7 -4.9 41.7 -4.9 41.7 -4.9



21 West End (WESEND) 38.0 34.7 -3.3 34.7 -3.3 35.3 -2.7

A-11

Table A.14


2003

No Action(Alt. 1)


Location LAeq12h LAeq12h Difference LAeq12h Difference LAeq12h Difference22 Coyote Canyon (COYCAN) 33 14.8 -18.2 15.3 -17.7 14.0 -19.0


24 The Dome (DOME) 35.4 14.5 -20.9 15.1 -20.3 13.6 -21.8



27 Granite Park (GRNTPK) 29.8 29.4 -0.4 29.1 -0.7 20.9 -8.9






33 Meriwhitca (MERIWH) 29 14.2 -14.8 13.9 -15.1 17.5 -11.5







40 Pumpkin Springs (PMPKIN) 19.5 20.0 0.5 19.3 -0.2 18.8 -0.7






46 The Ranch (RANCH) 32.5 37.4 4.9 37.4 4.9 37.4 4.9





51 Three Springs Rapids (THRSPR) 17.9 18.4 0.5 17.7 -0.2 19.4 1.5


53 96 Mile Camp (96MILE) 41.4 35.8 -5.6 35.8 -5.6 35.8 -5.6

A-12

Table A.15


2003

No Action(Alt. 1)










62 Saddle Mountain (SADMTN) 29 36.6 7.6 36.6 7.6 36.6 7.6



Table A.16


2003

No Action(Alt. 1)


Location LAeq12h LAeq12h Difference LAeq12h Difference LAeq12h Difference65 Cedar Ridge (CEDRIG) 28.3 28.1 -0.2 28.1 -0.2 28.0 -0.3








A-13

Table A.17



No Action(Alt. 1)




3 Bass Camp (BASCMP) 22.1 22.5 0.4 22.5 0.4 22.4 0.3

4 Bat Cave (BATCAV) 40.1 41.7 1.6 41.6 1.5 41.6 1.5







11 Sanup (SANUP) 39.2 39.4 0.2 33.5 -5.7 39.9 0.7


27.7 16.7 -11.0 16.3 -11.4 34.8 7.1






18 Tower of Ra (TOWER) 46.6 42.4 -4.2 42.4 -4.2 42.4 -4.2



21 West End (WESEND) 38.0 35.2 -2.8 35.2 -2.8 35.8 -2.2

A-14

Table A.18



No Action(Alt. 1)




24 The Dome (DOME) 35.4 15.2 -20.2 15.8 -19.6 14.4 -21.0






















46 The Ranch (RANCH) 32.5 38.2 5.7 38.2 5.7 38.2 5.7







53 96 Mile Camp (96MILE) 41.4 36.5 -4.9 36.5 -4.9 36.5 -4.9

A-15

Table A.19



No Action(Alt. 1)













Table A.20



No Action(Alt. 1)










A-16

Table A.21


2008

No Action(Alt.1)




3 Bass Camp (BASCMP) 22.8 21.8 -1.0 21.8 -1.0 21.7 -1.1

4 Bat Cave (BATCAV) 40.8 41.0 0.2 41.0 0.2 40.9 0.1







11 Sanup (SANUP) 39.9 38.7 -1.2 32.8 -7.1 39.2 -0.7


28.4 16.0 -12.4 15.6 -12.8 34.1 5.7






18 Tower of Ra (TOWER) 47.3 41.7 -5.6 41.7 -5.6 41.7 -5.6



21 West End (WESEND) 38.7 35.1 -3.6 35.0 -3.7 35.6 -3.1

A-17

Table A.22


2008

No Action (Alt.1)




24 The Dome (DOME) 36.1 14.5 -21.6 15.1 -21.0 13.6 -22.5
















40 Pumpkin Springs (PMPKIN) 20.2 20.0 -0.2 19.3 -0.9 18.8 -1.4






46 The Ranch (RANCH) 33.2 37.4 4.2 37.4 4.2 37.4 4.2


48 South Supai Canyon (SOSUPC) 32.3 32.6 0.3 34.0 1.7 31.7 -0.6



51 Three Springs Rapids (THRSPR) 18.6 18.4 -0.2 17.7 -0.9 19.4 0.8


53 96 Mile Camp (96MILE) 42.1 35.8 -6.3 35.8 -6.3 35.8 -6.3

A-18

Table A.23


2008

No Action(Alt. 1)













Table A.24


2008

No Action (Alt.1)


Location LAeq12h LAeq12h Difference LAeq12h Difference LAeq12h Difference65 Cedar Ridge (CEDRIG) 29.0 28.1 -0.9 28.1 -0.9 28.0 -1.0

66 `Lipan Point (LIPAN) 31.6 35.3 3.7 35.3 3.7 35.3 3.7







A-19

Table A.25



No Action(Alt. 1)




3 Bass Camp (BASCMP) 22.8 23.2 0.4 23.2 0.4 23.1 0.3

4 Bat Cave (BATCAV) 40.8 42.4 1.6 42.3 1.5 42.3 1.5







11 Sanup (SANUP) 39.9 40.1 0.2 34.2 -5.7 40.6 0.7


28.4 17.4 -11.0 17.0 -11.4 35.5 7.1






18 Tower of Ra (TOWER) 47.3 43.1 -4.2 43.1 -4.2 43.1 -4.2



21 West End (WESEND) 38.7 35.9 -2.8 35.9 -2.8 36.5 -2.2

A-20

Table A.26



No Action(Alt. 1)




24 The Dome (DOME) 36.1 15.9 -20.2 16.5 -19.6 15.1 -21.0






















46 The Ranch (RANCH) 33.2 38.9 5.7 38.9 5.7 38.9 5.7







53 96 Mile Camp (96MILE) 42.1 37.2 -4.9 37.2 -4.9 37.2 -4.9

A-21

Table A.27



No Action(Alt. 1)













Table A.28



No Action(Alt. 1)



66 `Lipan Point (LIPAN) 31.6 36.8 5.2 36.8 5.2 36.8 5.2







A-22

Table A.29

Comparison of 25%TA12h at Representative Locations in GCNPNorth of Colorado River, West of GC Airport

1998

No Action(Alt. 1)


Location 25%TA12h 25%TA12h Difference 25%TA12h Difference 25%TA12h Difference1 NPS Admin Site (ADMIN) 39.8 37.1 -2.7 37.7 -2.1 27.8 -12.0

2 Andrus Canyon (ANDRUS) 26.5 10.6 -15.9 25.2 -1.3 10.6 -15.9

3 Bass Camp (BASCMP) 1.6 1.5 -0.1 1.5 -0.1 1.5 -0.1

4 Bat Cave (BATCAV) 27.1 41.8 14.7 31.7 4.6 42.5 15.4

5 Burnt Springs Canyon (BRNTSP) 11.4 5.7 -5.7 5.7 -5.7 9.9 -1.5

6 Castle Peak (CASTLE) 32.8 21.9 -10.9 27.3 -5.5 21.8 -11.0





11 Sanup (SANUP) 62.0 61.7 -0.3 60.4 -1.6 68.2 6.2


1.0 0.0 -1.0 0.0 -1.0 11.4 10.4

13 Separation Canyon (SEPARC) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0



16 Suicide Point (SUIPNT) 23.5 41.9 18.4 22.4 -1.1 32.9 9.4


18 Tower of Ra (TOWER) 100.0 98.1 -1.9 98.5 -1.5 96.2 -3.8

19 Twin Point (TWINPT) 28.9 47.5 18.6 32.1 3.2 46.1 17.2


21 West End (WESEND) 8.9 4.8 -4.1 4.8 -4.1 5.6 -3.3

A-23

Table A.30

Comparison of 25%TA12h at Representative Locations in GCNPSouth of Colorado River, West of GC Airport

1998

No Action(Alt. 1)


Location 25%TA12h 25%TA12h Difference 25%TA12h Difference 25%TA12h Difference22 Coyote Canyon (COYCAN) 23.2 0.0 -23.2 0.0 -23.2 0.0 -23.2


24 The Dome (DOME) 25.2 0.0 -25.2 0.0 -25.2 0.0 -25.2

25 Granite Gorge (GRAGOR) 42.3 60.5 18.2 55.4 13.1 58.2 15.9

26 Grand Canyon West (GCWEST) 37.9 45.1 7.2 41.4 3.5 44.7 6.8


28 Gus Plateau (GUSPLT) 29.9 43.0 13.1 29.7 -0.2 23.7 -6.2



31 Hermit Basin (HBASIN) 100.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0


33 Meriwhitca (MERIWH) 5.2 2.3 -2.9 2.3 -2.9 6.6 1.4









42 Prospect Canyon (PRSPCT) 33.0 30.7 -2.3 35.6 2.6 23.2 -9.8



45 Quartermaster Point (QMPNT) 22.5 29.7 7.2 29.7 7.2 30.6 8.1

46 The Ranch (RANCH) 60.5 81.2 20.7 81.5 21.0 78.7 18.2



49 Spencer Canyon (SPENCA) 5.0 2.1 -2.9 2.1 -2.9 17.8 12.8




53 96 Mile Camp (96MILE) 41.2 40.8 -0.4 40.8 -0.4 40.6 -0.6

A-24

Table A.31

Comparison of 25%TA12h at Representative Locations in GCNPNorth of Colorado River, East of GC Airport

1998

No Action(Alt. 1)


Location 25%TA12h 25%TA12h Difference 25%TA12h Difference 25%TA12h Difference54 The Basin (BASIN) 52.8 35.7 -17.1 35.8 -17.0 35.6 -17.2



57 Cliff Dwellers Lodge (CLDWEL) 1.1 0.8 -0.3 0.8 -0.3 0.8 -0.3



60 North Canyon (NOCANY) 1.3 1.3 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.3 0.0


62 Saddle Mountain (SADMTN) 5.2 3.6 -1.6 3.6 -1.6 3.6 -1.6



Table A.32

Comparison of 25%TA12h at Representative Locations in GCNPSouth of Colorado River, East of GC Airport

1998

No Action(Alt. 1)


Location 25%TA12h 25%TA12h Difference 25%TA12h Difference 25%TA12h Difference65 Cedar Ridge (CEDRIG) 80.8 82.2 1.4 82.5 1.7 81.4 0.6







72 Zuni Charlie (ZUNCHR) 45.2 46.6 1.4 46.7 1.5 46.5 1.3

A-25

Table A.33

Comparison of 25%TA12h at Representative Locations in GCNPConsidering Commercial Air Tour LimitationsNorth of Colorado River, West of GC Airport

2000

No Action(Alt. 1)




3 Bass Camp (BASCMP) 1.7 1.5 -0.2 1.5 -0.2 1.5 -0.2

4 Bat Cave (BATCAV) 29.0 43.0 14.0 32.9 3.9 43.7 14.7






10 Point Sublime (PTSUBL) 100.0 100 0.0 100 0.0 100 0.0

11 Sanup (SANUP) 66.2 64.4 -1.8 63.1 -3.1 70.9 4.7


1.0 0 -1.0 0 -1.0 11.4 10.4

13 Separation Canyon (SEPARC) 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0


15 Stone Creek (STONCK) 0.2 0 -0.2 0 -0.2 0 -0.2



18 Tower of Ra (TOWER) 100.0 98.1 -1.9 98.5 -1.5 96.2 -3.8



21 West End (WESEND) 9.5 5.7 -3.8 5.7 -3.8 6.5 -3.0

A-26

Table A.34

Comparison of 25%TA12h at Representative Locations in GCNPConsidering Commercial Air Tour LimitationsSouth of Colorado River, West of GC Airport

2000

No Action(Alt. 1)




24 The Dome (DOME) 26.9 0.0 -26.9 0.0 -26.9 0.0 -26.9














38 Jackson Canyon (JCKCAN/NONAME) 15.0 9.3 -5.7 9.3 -5.7 24.6 9.6








46 The Ranch (RANCH) 64.6 81.2 16.6 81.5 16.9 78.7 14.1







53 96 Mile Camp (96MILE) 44.0 40.8 -3.2 40.8 -3.2 40.6 -3.4

A-27

Table A.35

Comparison of 25%TA12h at Representative Locations in GCNPConsidering Commercial Air Tour LimitationsNorth of Colorado River, East of GC Airport

2000

No Action(Alt. 1)













Table A.36

Comparison of 25%TA12h at Representative Locations in GCNPConsidering Commercial Air Tour LimitationsSouth of Colorado River, East of GC Airport

2000

No Action(Alt. 1)


Location 25%TA12h 25%TA12h Difference 25%TA12h Difference 25%TA12h Difference65 Cedar Ridge (CEDRIG) 86.3 82.2 -4.1 82.5 -3.8 81.4 -4.9








A-28

Table A.37

Comparison of 25%TA12h at Representative Locations in GCNPConsidering Continued Growth


No Action(Alt. 1)




3 Bass Camp (BASCMP) 1.7 1.6 -0.1 1.6 -0.1 1.6 -0.1

4 Bat Cave (BATCAV) 29.0 45.8 16.8 34.9 5.9 46.6 17.6







11 Sanup (SANUP) 66.2 68.8 2.6 67.4 1.2 75.8 9.6


1.0 0.0 -1.0 0.0 -1.0 12.1 11.1


14 Shivwitz Fire Camp (SHWZFC) 36.0 36.0 0.0 33.7 -2.3 27.1 -8.9




18 Tower of Ra (TOWER) 100.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0



21 West End (WESEND) 9.5 5.9 -3.6 5.9 -3.6 6.7 -2.8

A-29

Table A.38



No Action(Alt. 1)


Location 25%TA12h 25%TA12h Difference 25%TA12h Diff3rence 25%TA12h Difference22 Coyote Canyon (COYCAN) 24.8 0.0 -24.8 0.0 -24.8 0.0 -24.8


24 The Dome (DOME) 26.9 0.0 -26.9 0.0 -26.9 0.0 -26.9






















46 The Ranch (RANCH) 64.6 87.4 22.8 87.7 23.1 84.7 20.1







53 96 Mile Camp (96MILE) 44.0 43.9 -0.1 43.9 -0.1 43.7 -0.3

A-30

Table A.39



No Action(Alt. 1)













Table A.40



No Action(Alt. 1)










A-31

Table A.41


2003

No Action(Alt. 1)




3 Bass Camp (BASCMP) 1.8 1.5 -0.3 1.5 -0.3 1.5 -0.3

4 Bat Cave (BATCAV) 31.9 43.3 11.4 33.3 1.4 44.1 12.2







11 Sanup (SANUP) 72.9 65.1 -7.8 63.9 -9.0 71.7 -1.2


1.1 0.0 -1.1 0.0 -1.1 11.4 10.3






18 Tower of Ra (TOWER) 100.0 98.1 -1.9 98.5 -1.5 96.2 -3.8

19 Twin Point (TWINPT) 34.0 47.7 13.7 32.2 -1.8 46.2 12.2


21 West End (WESEND) 10.5 5.9 -4.6 5.9 -4.6 6.7 -3.8

A-32

Table A.42


2003

No Action(Alt. 1)




24 The Dome (DOME) 29.6 0.0 -29.6 0.0 -29.6 0.0 -29.6






















46 The Ranch (RANCH) 71.2 81.2 10.0 81.5 10.3 78.7 7.5


48 South Supai Canyon (SOSUPC) 52.1 53.0 0.9 53.5 1.4 45.5 -6.6





53 96 Mile Camp (96MILE) 48.5 40.8 -7.7 40.8 -7.7 40.6 -7.9

A-33

Table A.43


2003

No Action(Alt. 1)




56 Cape Royal (CAPROY) 33.9 31.9 -2.0 32.0 -1.9 31.8 -2.1









Table A.44


2003

No Action(Alt. 1)


Location 25%TA12h 25%TA12h Difference 25%TA12h Difference 25%TA12h Difference65 Cedar Ridge (CEDRIG) 95.1 82.2 12.9 82.5 -12.6 81.4 -13.7





70 Ten X Meadow (TENMED) 21.0 19.4 -1.6 19.7 -1.3 19.2 -1.8



A-34

Table A.45



No Action(Alt. 1)




3 Bass Camp (BASCMP) 1.8 1.8 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.8 0.0

4 Bat Cave (BATCAV) 31.9 50.5 18.6 38.5 6.6 51.4 19.5







11 Sanup (SANUP) 72.9 75.9 3.0 74.4 1.5 83.6 10.7


1.1 0.0 -1.1 0.0 -1.1 13.4 12.3






18 Tower of Ra (TOWER) 100.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0



21 West End (WESEND) 10.5 6.6 -3.9 6.6 -3.9 7.4 -3.1

A-35

Table A.46



No Action(Alt. 1)




24 The Dome (DOME) 29.6 0.0 -29.6 0.0 -29.6 0.0 -29.6






















46 The Ranch (RANCH) 71.2 96.4 25.2 96.7 25.5 93.4 22.2







53 96 Mile Camp (96MILE) 48.5 48.4 -0.1 48.4 -0.1 48.1 -0.4

A-36

Table A.47



No Action(Alt. 1)













Table A.48



No Action(Alt. 1)










A-37

Table A.49


2008

No Action(Alt. 1)




3 Bass Camp (BASCMP) 2.2 1.5 -0.7 1.5 -0.7 1.5 -0.7

4 Bat Cave (BATCAV) 37.5 44.0 6.5 33.9 -3.6 44.7 7.2







11 Sanup (SANUP) 85.8 66.5 -19.3 65.3 -20.5 73.1 -12.7


1.3 0.0 -1.3 0.0 -1.3 11.4 10.1






18 Tower of Ra (TOWER) 100.0 98.1 -1.9 98.5 -1.5 96.2 -3.8

19 Twin Point (TWINPT) 40.0 47.7 7.7 32.3 -7.7 46.3 6.3


21 West End (WESEND) 12.3 6.4 -5.9 6.4 -5.9 7.1 -5.2

A-38

Table A.50


2008

No Action(Alt. 1)




24 The Dome (DOME) 34.8 0.0 -34.8 0.0 -34.8 0.0 -34.8






















46 The Ranch (RANCH) 83.7 81.2 -2.5 81.5 -2.1 78.7 -5.0


48 South Supai Canyon (SOSUPC) 61.2 53.0 -8.2 53.5 -8.7 45.5 -15.7





53 96 Mile Camp (96MILE) 57.1 40.8 -16.3 40.8 -16.3 40.6 -16.5

A-39

Table A.51


2008

No Action(Alt. 1)



.5 Bright Angel Point (BRTANG) 6.5 1.9 -4.6 1.9 -4.6 1.9 -4.6

56 Cape Royal (CAPROY) 39.9 31.9 -8.0 32.0 -7.9 31.8 -8.1









Table A.52


2008

No Action(Alt. 1)


Location 25%TA12h 25%TA12h Difference 25%TA12h Difference 25%TA12h Difference65 Cedar Ridge (CEDRIG) 100.0 82.2 -17.8 82.5 -17.5 81.4 -18.6

66 Lipan Point (LIPAN) 23.1 21.2 -1.9 21.2 -1.9 21.1 -2.0




70 Ten X Meadow (TENMED) 24.7 19.4 -5.3 19.7 -5.0 19.2 -5.5



A-40

Table A.53



No Action(Alt. 1)




3 Bass Camp (BASCMP) 2.2 2.1 -0.1 2.1 -0.1 2.1 -0.1

4 Bat Cave (BATCAV) 37.5 59.5 22.0 45.3 7.8 60.5 23.0







11 Sanup (SANUP) 85.8 89.3 3.5 87.5 1.7 98.3 12.5


1.3 0.0 -1.3 0.0 -1.3 15.7 14.4






18 Tower of Ra (TOWER) 100.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0



21 West End (WESEND) 12.3 7.7 -4.6 7.7 -4.6 8.7 -3.6

A-41

Table A.54



No Action(Alt. 1)




24 The Dome (DOME) 34.8 0.0 -34.8 0.0 -34.8 0.0 -34.8






















46 The Ranch (RANCH) 83.7 100.0 16.3 100.0 16.3 100.0 16.3







53 96 Mile Camp (96MILE) 57.1 56.9 -0.2 57.0 -0.1 56.6 -0.5

A-42

Table A.55



No Action(Alt. 1)













Table A.56



No Action(Alt. 1)










A-43

Table A.57

Square Mile Area Covered by LAeq12h Contours (20-60)1998 (Base)

No Action (Alt.1) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

AnalysisContour

Level(dB)

Sq. Mi. Sq. Mi.% Change in Sq.

Mi. Area Sq. Mi.% Change in Sq.


Mi. Area

20 4539.7 3731.56 -17.80 3792.18 -16.47 4230.14 -6.82W 30 2018.46 1668.05 -17.36 1669.97 -17.27 1754.53 -13.08I 40 532.97 473.60 -11.14 417.64 -21.64 418.52 -21.47D 50 26.19 32.43 23.83 29.81 13.82 29.73 13.52E 60 3.24 3.75 15.74 3.55 9.57 3.46 6.79

20 1572.85 1109.68 -29.45 1092.81 -30.52 1183.47 -24.76G 30 644.33 571.11 -11.36 518.64 -19.51 556.72 -13.60C 40 138.04 115.12 -16.60 90.54 -34.41 110.74 -19.78N 50 3.75 2.82 -24.80 2.34 -37.60 2.41 -35.73P 60 0.04 0 -100 0 -100 0 -100

Table A.58

Square Mile Area Covered by LAeq12h Contours (20-60)Considering Commercial Air Tour Limitations

2000

No Action (Alt.1( Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

AnalysisContour

Level(dB)




Mi. Area

20 4616.23 3644.58 -21.05 3805.01 -17.57 4244.50 -8.05W 30 2078.16 1625.63 -21.78 1681.96 -19.06 1767.46 -14.95I 40 561.11 443.00 -21.05 424.27 -24.39 425.03 -24.25D 50 28.82 30.56 6.04 30.64 6.32 30.57 6.07E 60 3.40 3.56 4.71 3.61 6.18 3.53 3.82

20 1594.31 1092.94 -31.45 1093.22 -31.43 1183.58 -25.76G 30 667.07 556.03 -16.65 519.55 -22.11 558.03 -16.35C 40 146.42 105.70 -27.81 92.80 -36.62 112.85 -22.93N 50 4.46 2.40 -46.19 2.39 -46.41 2.49 -44.17P 60 0.04 0.00 -100.00 0.00 -100.00 0.00 -100.00

Table A.59

Square Mile Area Covered by LAeq12h Contours (20-60)Considering Continued Growth

2000

No Action(Alt.1) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

AnalysisContour

Level(dB)




Mi. Area

20 4616.23 3731.56 -19.16 3890.49 -15.72 4348.01 -5.81W 30 2078.16 1668.03 -19.74 1732.89 -16.61 1821.82 -12.33I 40 561.11 473.60 -15.60 456.78 -18.59 455.97 -18.74D 50 28.82 32.43 12.53 32.49 12.73 32.48 12.70E 60 3.4 3.76 10.59 3.82 12.35 3.72 9.41

20 1594.31 1109.68 -30.40 1110.27 -30.36 1201.50 -24.64G 30 667.07 571.11 -14.39 537.19 -19.47 576.25 -13.61C 40 146.42 115.12 -21.38 100.18 -31.58 121.32 -17.14N 50 4.46 2.82 -36.77 2.81 -37.00 2.93 -34.30P 60 0.04 0 -100 0 -100 0 -100

Table A.60

A-44

Square Mile Area Covered by LAeq12h Contours (20-60)Considering Commercial Air Tour Limitations

2008

No Action(Alt. 1) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

AnalysisContour

Level(dB)




Mi. Area

20 4904.07 3652.39 -25.52 3812.62 -22.26 4253.38 -13.27W 30 2323.70 1632.31 -29.75 1688.91 -27.32 1774.59 -23.63I 40 675.58 448.28 -33.65 429.43 -36.44 430.13 -36.33D 50 42.81 31.10 -27.35 31.18 -27.16 31.11 -27.33E 60 4.12 3.59 -12.86 3.65 -11.41 3.57 -13.35

20 1653.95 1093.22 -33.90 1093.48 -33.89 1183.67 -28.43G 30 759.94 556.34 -26.79 520.12 -31.56 558.77 -26.47C 40 180.46 108.52 -39.86 95.44 -47.11 114.97 -36.29N 50 7.64 2.44 -68.06 2.44 -68.06 2.54 -66.75P 60 0.06 0.00 -100.00 0.00 -100.00 0.00 -100.00

Table A.61

Square Mile Area Covered by LAeq12h Contours (20-60)Considering Continued Growth

2008

No Action(Alt. 1) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

AnalysisContour

Level(dB)




Mi. Area

20 4904.07 4061.81 -17.17 3898.03 -20.51 4741.95 -3.31W 30 2323.7 1830.02 -21.25 1739.52 -25.14 2028.44 -12.71I 40 675.58 590.11 -12.65 462.00 -31.61 581.13 -13.98D 50 42.81 41.36 -3.39 33.03 -22.85 41.64 -2.73E 60 4.12 4.56 10.68 3.86 -10.44 4.52 9.71

20 1653.95 1161.49 -29.77 1110.56 -32.85 1263.80 -23.59G 30 759.94 622.16 -18.13 537.62 -29.25 639.12 -15.90C 40 180.46 155.52 -13.82 102.95 -42.95 163.47 -9.41N 50 7.64 4.97 -20.12 2.86 -62.57 5.32 -30.37P 60 0.06 0 -100 0 -100 0 -100

Table A.62

Square Mile Area Where %TA12h is Greater Than 25%1998 (Base)

No Action (Alt. 1) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Analysis Sq. Mi. Sq. Mi.% Change in Sq.



Mi. AreaWIDE 2821.48 2511.80 -10.98 2580.19 -8.55 2384.77 -15.48GCNP 1283.96 1064.46 -17.10 1054.92 -17.84 1061.32 -17.34

Table A.63

Square Mile Area Where %TA12h is Greater Than 25%Considering Commercial Air Tour Limitations

2000





Mi. AreaWIDE 2979.89 2529.97 -15.10 2598.32 -12.80 2397.36 -19.55GCNP 1308.87 1064.46 -18.65 1055.56 -19.35 1062.26 -18.84

Table A.64

Square Mile Area Where %TA12h is Greater Than 25%Considering Continued Growth

2000

A-45





Mi. AreaWIDE 2979.89 2638.73 -11.45 2730.52 -8.37 2576.72 -13.53GCNP 1308.87 1106.07 -15.49 1100.29 -15.94 1115.74 -14.76

Table A.65

Square Mile Area Where %TA12h is Greater Than 25%Considering Commercial Air Tour Limitations

2008





Mi. AreaWIDE 3419.2 2542.36 -25.64 2610.46 -23.65 2406.49 -29.62GCNP 1410.07 1065.44 -24.44 1056.40 -25.08 1062.73 -24.63

Table A.66

Square Mile Area Where %TA12h is Greater Than 25%Considering Continued Growth

2008

No Action (Alt.1) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4


% Change in Sq.Mi. Area Sq. Mi.

% Change in Sq.Mi. Area

WIDE 3419.20 3051.44 -10.76 2740.93 -19.84 3415.20 -0.12GCNP 1410.07 1269.48 -9.97 1100.98 -21.92 1329.85 -5.69

APPENDIX B

GLOSSARY

APPENDIX C

NOISE BASICS

APPENDIX D

TECHNICAL MEMORANDA

APPENDIX E

OPERATIONS DATA

E-1

Summary of 1998 GCNP Operational Activities as a Function of Flight TrackNo-Action Alternative

Track Type of Operation Aircraft OperationsDHC6 19.03GASEPV 0.65

BD0030 Departure

BEC58P 30.00BEC58P 1.97DHC6 8.07

BD0016 Arrival

GASEPV 0.09BEC58P 0.66GASEPV 0.01

BD,BL1R-A/G0032 Departure

DHC6 0.41GASEPV 0.53DHC6 15.57

BDS0061 Departure

BEC58P 1.27DHC6 3.50GASEPV 0.09

BDS0060 Arrival

BEC58P 0.20BK,BL,BR0067 Departure GASEPV 0.34

GASEPV 0.10BK1 (Gunther)0040 CircuitBEC58P 0.05GASEPV 0.03GASEPF 0.01

BK1,40013 Departure

DHC6 0.00*

GASEPV 1.82GASEPF 0.02

BK1,4X0047 Departure

DHC6 0.28BK1A0004 Departure DHC6 8.62

GASEPF 0.15GASEPV 11.11

BK1A0004 Circuit

BEC58P 0.14DHC6 0.18BK2,1,1A0050 ArrivalGASEPV 1.00GASEPV 0.14BK2,1,40043 OverflightDHC6 0.00*

GASEPV 1.24DHC6 0.22

BK3,10012 Arrival

GASEPF 0.02BK3,10044 Arrival BEC58P 0.11

DHC6 0.81GASEPV 1.91

BK5,10048 Arrival

GASEPF 0.04BK5,1,1A0046 Arrival GASEPV 0.02


BK5,1,1A,1,40045 Overflight

DHC6 0.00*

BL,BR0064 Departure DHC6 0.05BL,BR0064 Circuit GASEPV 0.83BL,BR,BK0065 Departure GASEPV 0.98

GASEPV 1.88BEC58P 33.98

BL1,BD-A/G0018 Arrival

DHC6 24.75GASEPV 0.33BL1,BD-A/O0077 OverflightBEC58P 6.19

E-2



BL1,BDS-A/O0069 Overflight

BEC58P 0.19GASEPV 0.15DHC6 0.02

BL1,BL1A,BDS-MNV0075 Overflight

BEC58P 0.10BL1R,2B,BDS0070 Circuit GASEPV 0.04


BL2-A/G0071 Overflight

DHC6 0.69GASEPV 2.13GASEPF 0.15BEC58P 0.55


DHC6 0.17BEC58P 0.79GASEPV 0.64

BL2-A/O0019 Overflight

DHC6 0.39GASEPF 2.52GASEPV 12.32BEC58P 5.68


DHC6 2.95AS350 2.02GR1-A/O0033 DepartureMD900 0.02AS350 2.72B206 13.00

GR1A-A/O0002 Departure

MD900 0.02AS350 11.04B206 60.18

GR2-A/O0003 Departure

MD900 0.07AS350 11.18GR4-A/G0091 OverflightB206 0.81

GR4-A/G0093 Overflight AS350 1.63AS350 1.56GR4-A/G0089 OverflightB206 0.80AS350 0.90GR4-A/O0081 OverflightB206 0.17AS350 0.34GR4-A/O0026 OverflightB206 0.19B206 2.63GR4-A/O0024 OverflightAS350 0.18

BK,BL,BR0062 Arrival GASEPV 0.34BK1,4X,6,5,10042 Arrival GASEPV 0.05BK6,BK5,BK10066 Arrival GASEPV 0.98

GASEPV 0.14BK2,1,4X0085 OverflightDHC6 0.02

BL1,BR1A0087 Overflight DHC6 0.01Total Operations 321.78

* The number of operations for the DHC6 aircraft on each of the tracks 0013, 0043, and 0045 is 0.003 operations, whichconverts to 0.00 operations when rounded to two decimal places. The 0.003 operations for the DHC6 on each of thesetracks is included as part of the total aircraft operations.

E-3



BD0030 Departure

BEC58P 32.01BEC58P 2.10DHC6 8.61

BD0016 Arrival




BDS0061 Departure


BDS0060 Arrival



BK1,40013 Departure

DHC6 0.00*





BK1A0004 Circuit



BK3,10012 Arrival



BK5,10048 Arrival




DHC6 0.00*





E-4

















MD900 0.02AS350 11.78B206 64.21








E-5



BD0030 Departure

BEC58P 35.29BEC58P 2.31DHC6 9.49

BD0016 Arrival




BDS0061 Departure


BDS0060 Arrival



BK1,40013 Departure

DHC6 0.00*





BK1A0004 Circuit



BK3,10012 Arrival



BK5,10048 Arrival




DHC6 0.00*





E-6

















MD900 0.02AS350 12.99B206 70.78








E-7



BD0030 Departure

BEC58P 41.51BEC58P 2.72DHC6 11.16

BD0016 Arrival




BDS0061 Departure


BDS0060 Arrival



BK1,40013 Departure

DHC6 0.00*





BK1A0004 Circuit



BK3,10012 Arrival



BK5,10048 Arrival




DHC6 0.00*





E-8















DHC6 4.08AS350 2.80GR1-A/O0033 DepartureMD900 0.03 AS350 3.76B206 17.99


MD900 0.02AS350 15.28B206 83.26








E-9

Summary of 1998 GCNP Operational Activities as a Function of Flight Track

Preferred Alternative

Track Type of Operation Aircraft Operations

DHC6(high) 16.30DHC6(low) 2.88GASEPV(low) 1.18BEC58P(high) 25.71

BD0061 Departure

BEC58P(low) 4.54BEC58P(high) 12.35BEC58P(low) 2.18DHC6(high) 14.64DHC6(low) 2.58

BD0060 Arrival

GASEPV(low) 0.78DHC6(high) 15.83BDS0063 DepartureBEC58P(high) 1.69DHC6 19.09GASEPV 1.28

BDS0062 Arrival

BEC58P 21.61BK10040 Departure DHC6 0.86BK1R0049 Departure DHC6 7.82


BK10040 Circuit

BEC58P 0.02GASEPV 12.47GASEPF 0.14

BK1R0049 Circuit

BEC58P 0.12GASEPV 0.10BK1/BK2044 CircuitBEC58P 0.04GASEPV 0.03GASEPF 0.01

BK2/BK40041 Departure

DHC6 0.00*


BK2/BK2X/BK5E/BK5/BK10047 Departure

DHC6 0.28DHC6 0.40GASEPV 2.25BEC58P 0.11

BK2S/BK10050 Arrival

GASEPF 0.02GASEPV 0.14BK2S/BK1/BK40043 OverflightDHC6 0.00*


BK5/BK10046 Arrival

GASEPF 0.04GASEPV 0.47GASEPF 0.05

BK5/BK1/BK1/BK40045 Overflight

DHC6 0.00*

GASEPV 15.90BEC58P 13.49DHC6 4.25

BL20069 Overflight

GASEPF 2.67GASEPF 0.28GASEPV 1.47

BL2/BL2E0071 Overflight

DHC6 0.69

E-10




AS350 4.74B206 13.00

GR10080 Departure

MD900 0.04AS350 11.04B206 60.18

GR20086 Departure

MD900 0.07AS350 15.27GR40095 OverflightB206 1.78AS350 0.52GR40087 OverflightB206 2.82

BK5/BK10054 Arrival GASEPV 0.05GASEPV 0.14BK2S/BK2/BK2X0051 OverflightDHC6 0.02

Total Operations 321.78* The number of operations for the DHC6 aircraft on each of the tracks 0041, 0043, and 0045 is 0.003 operations, which

converts to 0.00 operations when rounded to two decimal places. The 0.003 operations for the DHC6 on each of thesetracks is included as part of the total aircraft operations.

E-11





BD0061 Departure


BD0060 Arrival


BDS0062 Arrival



BK10040 Circuit


BK1R0049 Circuit

BEC58P 0.12BK1/BK2044 Circuit GASEPV 0.10



DHC6 0.00*







BK5/BK10046 Arrival



DHC6 0.00*

GASEPV 15.90BEC58P 13.49DHC6 4.25

BL20069 Overflight

GASEPF 2.67GASEPF 0.00BL2/BL2E0071 OverflightGASEPV 0.93

E-12




DHC6 1.38BEC58P 1.05AS350 4.74B206 13.00

GR10080 Departure

MD900 0.04AS350 11.04B206 60.18

GR20086 Departure

MD900 0.07GR40095 Overflight AS350 23.04

B206 4.91AS350 0.52GR40087 OverflightB206 2.82


Total Operations 333.59* The number of operations for the DHC6 aircraft on each of the tracks 0041, 0043, and 0045 is 0.003 operations

and for the GASEPV is 0.002 operations, which converts to 0.00 operations when rounded to two decimal places. The operations for the DHC6 and GASEPV on each of these tracks is included as part of the total aircraftoperations.

E-13





BD0061 Departure


BD0060 Arrival


BDS0062 Arrival



BK10040 Circuit

BEC58P 0.02BK1R0049 Circuit GASEPV 12.47

GASEPF 0.14BEC58P 0.12GASEPV 0.10BK1/BK2044 CircuitBEC58P 0.04GASEPV 0.03GASEPF 0.01


DHC6 0.00*







BK5/BK10046 Arrival



DHC6 0.00*

GASEPV 15.90BEC58P 13.49DHC6 4.25

BL20069 Overflight

GASEPF 2.67GASEPF 0.00*GASEPV 1.02DHC6 1.52


BEC58P 1.16

E-14




AS350 4.74B206 13.00

GR10080 Departure

MD900 0.04AS350 11.04B206 60.18

GR20086 Departure



Total Operations 336.79

E-15





BD0061 Departure


BD0060 Arrival


BDS0062 Arrival



BK10040 Circuit

BEC58P 0.02BK1R0049 Circuit GASEPV 12.47

GASEPF 0.14BEC58P 0.12GASEPV 0.10BK1/BK2044 CircuitBEC58P 0.04GASEPV 0.03GASEPF 0.01


DHC6 0.00*







BK5/BK10046 Arrival



DHC6 0.00*

GASEPV 15.90BEC58P 13.49DHC6 4.25

BL20069 Overflight

GASEPF 2.67GASEPF 0.00*GASEPV 1.20DHC6 1.79


BEC58P 1.36

E-16




AS350 4.74B206 13.00

GR10080 Departure

MD900 0.04AS350 11.04B206 60.18

GR20086 Departure



Total Operations 342.88* The number of operations for the DHC6 aircraft on each of the tracks 0041, 0043, and 0045 is 0.004 operations, which

converts to 0.00 operations when rounded to two decimal places. The 0.004 operations for the DHC6 on each of thesetracks is included as part of the total aircraft operations.

APPENDIX F

SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS

F-1

SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS

As part of this noise study, threesupplemental analyses were conducted.Rather than using all of the yearly data fromthe Activity Report, as is done in the mainanalysis, the supplemental analysisexamines the projected noise environment inGCNP for three shorter time periods. Eachof the analyses was done assuming that thePreferred Alternative (Alternative 2) isimplemented. Selection of one Alternativefor this sensitivity analysis provides arepresentative comparison for all of theProposed Alternatives and the No ActionAlternative.

The first supplemental analysis modelsoperations on an average summer day, thesecond models an average ‘shoulder’ seasonday, and the third models a day of highaircraft activity (“peak day”).

Due to comments on the Draft SEA, theFAA has determined that the peak houranalysis shown in the Draft SEA was not arealistic scenario as computed. To allowcomparisons with other analyses, it wasnecessary to convert the peak hour into a 12-hour day; however, upon additional analysis,the computed 12-hour day was found to beunrealistic, so the peak hour analysis wasdropped from this Final SEA.

The NPS defined the summer season as thefive-month period from May 1 throughSeptember 30, and the shoulder season asthe four months, two in the spring and twoin the fall, on both sides of the summerseason. Shoulder season months are March,April, October, and November.

Average activity levels during these seasonswere represented in the modeling by a daythat most closely matched the seasonal

average. The summer day used was June 6,1997, the shoulder day was November 19,1997, and the peak day was August 11,1997.

For the summer and shoulder seasons, theaverage number of operations per day wasdetermined by taking the total number of airtour routes flown in the season and dividingby the number of days in the season. As aneffective surrogate for operations and themost readily available statistic in the FAAActivity Report, it should be noted that thenumber of routes flown does not equate withthe number of operations modeled in theINM analysis. The number of routes flownin the Activity Report actually refers toroutes or route segments, and a singlecommercial SFRA operation may includeseveral route segments. The INM modelingwas based upon the number of commercialSFRA operations, not the number of routesegments flown, so the number of operationsmodeled will always be less than the numberof routes flown in the Activity Report. SeeSection 4.1.3.

Specifically, the summer average for routesflown in 1997 was 579 per day. June 6 wasthe closest to this average with 578 routesflown, so it was chosen to represent anaverage summer day in this analysis. Theshoulder season average for routes flown in1997 was 346 per day. November 19 wasthe closest to the average with 345 routesflown, so it was chosen to represent anaverage shoulder season day in the analysis.The highest single day of activity wasAugust 11, 1997, which was used for thepeak day analysis, with 816 routes flown.The corresponding number of commercialSFRA operations modeled in INM was 429

F-2

on June 6, 1997, 289 for November 19,1997, and 653 for August 11, 1997.

As with the main analysis, both the LAeq12h

and %TA12h metrics were computed for thissupplemental analysis of the study areausing A-weighted decibels. A discussion ofthese two metrics follows.

LAeq12h Analysis

Review of the LAeq12h results show that the30 and 40 dB levels contain the most usefulinformation on the variation of noise withinthe study periods. These levels contain thegreatest area of exposure above the ambientlevels. In comparison, the 20 dB levels arebelow the ambient in many areas of thePark, while the 50 and 60 dB levels do notencompass a significant area of the Park.The total area in square miles for each ofthese contours, both over the entire studyarea and the area within GCNP, arepresented in Table F.1.

The percentage of GCNP within the 30 dBLAeq12h level varies from 38.2 for the peak to31.7 for the average summer day and 24.8for the average shoulder season day. For thehigher dB levels, the areas drop offsignificantly. 11.6 percent of GCNPexperienced a Leq12h level of 40 dB or higheron the peak day. On the average summerday, 7.9 percent of the Park was within the40-dB Leq12h level; 4.8 percent was withinthe 40-dB level on the average shoulder day.These percentages are found by dividing theappropriate entries in Table F.1 by the totalarea of GCNP (1886.78 square miles).

While the %TA12h metric tends to correlatelinearly with the number of operations, theLAeq12h metric tends to be less sensitive tooperations due to its acoustic-energy basisfoundation. For example, assuming that allother factors (such as track loading and

aircraft types) remain constant for a givenmeasurement location, doubling the numberof operations will double the %TA12h

compared with increasing the LAeq12h by 3dB. For this reason, the LAeq12h levels forthe three periods show less variation thanthe %TA12h levels described below.

%TA12h Analysis

The high number of operations on the peakday may require the %TA12h metric for thatday to be interpreted with some caution. Forexample, on the peak day in 1997, therewere 184 operations on Green 2. This is anaverage, over the 12-hour activity period, ofabout 15 operations an hour, or oneoperation every four minutes. At these highlevels of activity, noise from consecutiveoperations will almost certainly overlap,particularly during the peak activity periodsof the day. The INM calculates the %TA12h

metric for each event independently, andthen sums the time for all the events, so theINM reported %TA12h will always be equalor greater than a %TA12h metric thataccounts for overlapping operations. Thiseffect is not as pronounced at lower levels ofoperations, where the probability of noiseevents overlapping is relatively low.

Table F.2 presents the areas of the25%TA12h contours for both the entire studyarea and the area within GCNP. Theamount of substantial restoration of naturalquiet in GCNP varies depending upon thetime period analyzed. This Table alsoshows the percentage of GCNP thatexperiences substantial restoration of naturalquiet during each study period. The percentof restoration ranges from 19.0% for thepeak day, to 43.6% for the annual averageday (as discussed in Sec. 4.1), to 53.7% forthe shoulder season day. The Table alsoincludes the Alternative 2 average annualday results for easy comparison.

F-3

The results presented in this Appendix applyonly for the particular days under study.The individual air tour routes in use on anyday will greatly influence which parts of thePark are exposed to aircraft noise and thelevel of that exposure.

F-4

Table F.1

Square Mile Area for LAeq12h Contours (20-60)(Based on Alternative 2 routes)

Table F.2

Square Mile Area for 25%TA12h Contour(Based on Alternative 2 routes)

AnalysisAverage Annual

Day1998

(Alternative 2)

Average AnnualDay2000

(Alternative 2)

Shoulder DayNovember 19, 1997

Summer DayJune 6, 1997

Peak DayAugust 11, 1997

WIDE 2511.80 2529.97 2517.32 3115.79 3727.50

GCNP 1064.46 1064.76 1069.38 1295.81 1529.09

% Restored 43.6 43.6 53.7 31.3 19.0

Note: The Average Annual Day 1998 column in Tables F-1 and F-2 was based on what was modeled in the June1999 Draft SEA. The Average Annual Day 2000 column includes Hualapai support operations that have increasedover 1998 levels. (See Section 4.1.3). The Hualapai operations were provided to FAA as annual data and could notbe assigned to specific days. The Average Annual Day 1998 and 2000 columns are based on a route structure thatincludes the Zuni corridor turn-around. (See Section 2.3.2.) The other scenarios include the route structure as ofJune 1999.

Analysis ContourLevel(dB)

AverageAnnual Day

1998(Alternative 2)

AverageAnnual Day

2000(Alternative 2)

Shoulder DayNovember 19, 1997

Summer DayJune 6, 1997

Peak DayAugust 11, 1997

20 3731.56 3644.58 3593.80 4059.49 4847.98

30 1668.05 1625.63 1578.52 1834.84 2195.55

40 473.6 443.00 470.42 592.76 758.79

50 32.43 30.56 18.22 27.12 60.05

WIDE

60 3.75 3.56 3.09 4.66 6.36

20 1109.68 1092.94 1006.69 1172.65 1282.84

30 571.11 556.03 467.23 598.92 721.58

40 115.12 105.70 90.89 149.43 219.01

50 2.82 2.40 0.32 3.94 9.98

GCNP

60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .06

APPENDIX G

COMMENTS and RESPONSES

1

Comments on the Draft Supplemental EA

# Commentor Date Comment ResponseWritten Comments1 Dr. Donald James

BarryAustin, Texas

7/27/99 1a. Supports strong federal mandates against overflights of theGrand Canyon.

1b. Recommends that overflights be administered as a Parkresource and not as a distributed commercial opportunity.Specifically, an NPS/citizen’s board should have authority todetermine rates, routes, and franchises. Allocation of ticketsshould be made on a lottery system rather than highest-bidder toinsure equitable access.

1a. Comment noted.

1b. FAA has exclusive jurisdiction to manage the navigable airspace ofthe United States and there is a public right to transit that airspace.NPS is charged with management of natural and cultural resources andvalues of the Park. FAA has worked cooperatively with NPS towardsachieving substantial restoration of natural quiet in the GCNP, whileaccommodating the needs of other parties.

2 Mr. Robert G.McCuneGrand Canyon AirTour Council(GCATC)Las Vegas, Nevada

9/3/99 2a. The GCATC believes any effort, other than a complete EIS,will not be in compliance with the NEPA.

2b. Recommends the DSEA be pulled until the noise concernshave been professionally reconsidered because it appears thatmost of the DSEA-Supplemental EA noise rationale andmethodology is not anchored to acceptable noise science.

2a. This supplemental environmental assessment is NEPA compliant.The analysis in the Final SEA indicates that the Preferred Alternativehas adverse, but not significant adverse, impacts. The PreferredAlternative includes mitigation for Native American historicproperties, but will adversely affect some Hualapai Tribe TCPs. It islikely to adversely affect, but not jeopardize the existence, of someendangered species See, Final SEA, Table 2.1.

2b. Noise issues have been professionally considered in thisSupplemental Environmental Assessment (see Chapter 4 andappendices, which have been clarified in the Final SEA) in accordancewith FAA guidelines, policies and regulations. In accordance withagency guidelines, aircraft noise exposure must be established in termsof yearly day/night sound level (DNL). The formula to calculateYearly DNL includes specific aircraft noise levels combined with theannual average daily operations of those aircraft. The FAA recognizesthat seasonal fluctuation in visitors to the park (by air and by land)would mean that the number of air tour operations on any particularday could be substantially higher or lower than the annual average.

The FAA guidelines include the provision that the DNL analysis mayoptionally be supplemented on a case-by-case basis to characterizespecific noise effects. The supplemental noise analysis must be

2

# Commentor Date Comment Response

2c. Requests that the FAA include in its scoping an analysis ofthe positive benefits of air tourism on the tangible naturalresources of GCNP. FAA should analyze the impact if over800,000 aerial visitors, including over 160,000 physicallychallenged visitors, used ground transportation to visit GCNP.Failure to consider these impacts may be inconsistent with NEPAand the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

2d. Requests that the FAA add to the scope of the EA, “valuesassociated with aircraft flights” as called for in Section 1 (c) (4)of Public Law 100-91.

2e. Environmental impacts of proposed rules should properlyrecognize the impact to the environment of air tour visitors aswell as ground visitors.

tailored to enhance the public’s understanding of both the noiseimpacts and the pertinent facts surrounding the changes. In thiscontext, the supplemental analysis is intended to convey therelationship between noise exposure and daily air tour operations. Formore detail see Section 4.1.2 which has been clarified in the Final SEA

2c. It is the intent of the Preferred Alternative to permit aerial viewingto continue in a manner consistent with Pub. L. 100-91. The actions bythe FAA to here are additive to actions being taken by NPS to protectthe natural resources of GCNP from adverse impacts resulting fromground visitation. The physically challenged will continue to haveopportunities to view and appreciate the beauty of the canyon both onthe ground and through the air in accordance with the spirit of theADA. For more detail, see Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of theGCNP, 61 Fed Reg. 69302, 69308-69309, December 31, 1996;proposed Final Rule, Commercial Air Tour Limitation in the GCNPSFRA, page 43-44. The vast majority of air tour visitors already alsovisit the park on the ground. The Final EA is consistent with NEPA,which does not require a worst-case analysis.

2d. The Regulatory Evaluation contained in the Final Rules addressesthe “values associated with aircraft flights.”

2e. Pub. L. 100-91 does not require elimination of air tours overGCNP. Modifications to the airspace, and commercial air tour routesare part of the proposed Federal action to fulfill Pub. L. 100-91, groundvisitors are not. See Response to Comment 2c, above

3 Mr. Eric Jorgensen 9/5/99 3. Believes all air tours over the GC should be eliminated. 3. Pub. L. 100-91 does not require the elimination of all tour flightsprovided substantial restoration of natural quiet can be achieved. Seealso proposed Final Rule, Commercial Air Tour Limitation in theGCNP SFRA, Section III, C (FAA Response).

4 Mr. Phil Davis 8/30/99 4a. Supports the air tour operators’ recommendation of thedogleg modification of the Dragon Corridor flight zone.

4a. In response to concerns of air tour operators, this is included in thePreferred Alternative.

3

# Commentor Date Comment Response4b. Agrees with all pilots who fly air tours at GCNP: re-routingflights over the North Rim is unsafe.

4c. Believes substantial restoration of natural quiet in GCNP hasbeen achieved.

4b. In response to comments from the air tour operators regardingweather and flight over the north rim a turn-around has been added tothe Zuni-Corridor (see Notice of Routes Availability).

4c. Under the Preferred Alternative, natural quiet will be achieved foronly 43.6 per cent of the GCNP by 2000. Final SEA at Table 4.10

5 [email protected] 8/30/99 5. Submitted identical comments as Commentor #4 (Phil Davis). 5. See response to Comment 4.

6 Ms. Diane Gruner 9/1/99 6a. Believes helicopter tours are quiet and unseen, and that thenew regulatory proposals are unjustified, unwarranted, andunnecessary.

6b. Submitted partially identical comments as Commentor #4(Phil Davis).

6a. As part of Pub. L. 100-91, Congress found that noise associatedwith aircraft overflights was causing “a significant adverse effect onthe natural quiet and experience of the park…” After careful study, inits 1994 Report to Congress NPS concluded that additional steps wereneeded to substantially restore natural quiet to the GCNP. See also,Memorandum to Heads of Federal Agencies and ExecutiveDepartments, April 22, 1996, 61 Fed Reg. 18229, April 25, 1996. ThisFinal SEA confirms that limitations on air tour overflights are neededto meet the goals of Pub. L. 100-91.

6b. See Responses to Comment 4.

7 Mr. Michael C. ShielRothstein, Donatelli,Hughes, Dahlstron,Cron & Schoenberg,LLPAttorneys at Law

9/2/99 7. For over two decades it has been the consistent position of theHavasupai Tribe that all commercial fixed wing air tour flights beremoved from the Havasupai Reservation. The Land Use Planfor the Havasupai Reservation that the Department of Interioradopted pursuant to Section 10 of the Grand CanyonEnlargement Act, 16 USC 228I(b)(4), acknowledged the Tribe’sdesire to remove tour flights “[I]n the interests of privacy andrespect for the peace and quiet of certain special areas”throughout the Reservation. The Havasupai Tribe appreciates theefforts of the FAA to consult with the Havasupai Tribe andFAA’s recognition of the Tribe’s concern regardingconfidentiality of traditional cultural properties and sacred sites.The Tribe enclosed a discussion of important aspects of historicaland current Havasupai life and requested that this discussion be

7. Pages 3-2 and 3-3 in the Final SEA have been revised to clarifyimportant aspects of historical and current Havasupai life. As toconsistency with local land use plans, see the Response to Comment8g.

4

# Commentor Date Comment Responseadded to the Supplemental EA at pages 3-2 and 3-3..

8 Ron W. Williams,Chairman, AirStarHelicopter

9/7/99 8a. SEA is inadequate, should be withdrawn and a full EIS becomplied with.

8b. Additional environmental impacts of air tour passengerbecoming ground visitors should be addressed.

8c. Positive environmental impacts caused by visitor air touringversus ground touring have not been addressed.

8d. Use of NPS Dual Standard should be withdrawn as themethod is just beginning the validation process.

8e. Proposed regulations have not been scientifically justified andthe entire data collection process has been biased.

8a. See response to Comment 2a.

8b. See response to Comment 2e.

8c. See response to Comment 2e.

8d. NPS has made a management decision that the threshold formeasurement of the onset of impact to natural quiet will vary acrossthe GCNP according to two zones. This approach does not setstandards for different parts of the Park that aircraft overflights will berequired to meet. Since the thresholds are used as inputs for modelingand have no bearing on the workings of the models (such as thealgorithms) that are addressed in the validation study, there is noreasonable basis to postpone implementation of changes to the processfor assessing noise impacts. Validation in this context is equivalent toimprovement. The current modeling is the best available and producesresults consistent with available data. See, Change in Noise EvaluationMethodology for Air Tour Operations over the GCNP, Notice ofDisposition of Public Comments and Adoption of Final NoiseEvaluation Methodology, Discussion of Comments, Response 3,Disagreement With Two-Zone System, and Response 19, NoiseValidation, 64 Fed Reg. 38006, 38008-9, 38015, July 14, 1999.

8e. Based on the FAA review of the technical considerations affectingthis study, the FAA modified the INM. In determining theappropriateness of the above modifications for this analysis, FAAperformed a check of reasonableness of INM predictions using dataobtained from actual measurements in the Grand Canyon (VolpeCenter Letter Report DTS-75-FA465-LR11, Aug. 9, 1994 – seeAppendix D). This check compared measured and INM-predictedsound exposure levels (SEL, denoted by the symbol LAE) for individualflyover operations and LAeq1h values at GCNP. The results from INM

5


8f. FAA and NPS appear to be acting primarily for politicalreasons. Their actions seem to not seriously address regulatoryrequirements of the Small Business Administration or the Officeof Management and Budget.

8g. We do not believe that the FAA’s statutory authority is todiscourage the growth of commercial aviation and limit the usesof our country’s airways. DOT and FAA should stand up to thepolitical pressures and exercise their statutory responsibility.FAA will not achieve the goals of Free Flight 2000 at least in thewestern United States if these rules are enacted and thisprecedent established.

analysis correlate closely with actual measured data in the Canyon.

8f. These actions meet SBA and all applicable regulatoryrequirements, as discussed in detail in the proposed Final Rule.

8g. Federal law and executive policy require FAA and NPS to workcooperatively to achieve substantial restoration of natural quiet in theGCNP. As the volume of noise is positively related to flightoperations, a limitation to the number of air tours is one of the stepsbeing taken to toward the mandated goal of substantial restoration ofnatural quiet. Aerial viewing opportunities will continue consistentwith this objective. FAA’s authority is not limited to aviation safetyand efficiency. See, December 31, 1996 Final Rule, 61 Fed Reg.69302, 69308. Restrictions on operations by other than air tours arenot being contemplated. See, Change in Noise EvaluationMethodology for Air Tour Operations over the GCNP, Notice ofDisposition of Public Comments and Adoption of Final NoiseEvaluation Methodology, Discussion of Comments, Response 23, FAAAuthority and Role, 27, Restrictions at Higher Altitudes, 64 Fed Reg.38006, 38016-17, July 14, 1999.

State, local, and tribal governments may not use their police powers,including their land use control authority, to regulate use of thenavigable airspace. Further, unless precluded by other law fromcausing or contributing to any inconsistency with local land use plans,policies, or controls, FAA is aware that Federal agencies retain theauthority to decide to go forward with proposals, despite the conflict.To the extent that GCNP is the only Park subject to a statutorymandate to substantially restore natural quiet, the proposed actionshave limited precedential value.

9 Ms. BrendaHalvorson President,CEO Papillon GrandCanyon Helicopters

9/7/99 9. No comments on SEA.

10 Hualapai Tribe, 9/7/99 10a. Tribe commends FAA for revising Chapter 3 to include 10a. The data contained in Chapter 4 and Table 2.1 has been revised to

6

# Commentor Date Comment ResponseHualapai OverflightCommittee, TeresaLeger and Susan G.Jordan

several sections drafted by the Tribe describing the affectedenvironment on the Hualapai Reservation. However, the SEAanalysis of environmental impacts in Chapter 4 and Table 2.1remains inadequate.

10b. Requests FAA include in the record the commentspreviously submitted on the proposed action.

10c. The scope of the SEA must be the entire Grand CanyonRegion Affected by the SFAR. The EA incorrectly states at p. 1-6 that the mandate of the Overflights Act does not extend to theareas of the Grand Canyon located outside the boundaries of theGCNP. This contradicts the plain language of the statute becausethis section of the statute is not limited to the Park. Section3(b)(1) of the Act calls for recommendations for actionsnecessary to protect the resources in the Grand Canyon fromadverse impacts associated from aircraft overflights.

Chapter 4 still gives only cursory and inadequate attention to thenoise, visual and other impacts on tribal lands outside the GCNP.

include the results of Phase I and IIA of the Ethnographic Study.

10b. In accordance with the Cooperating Agency Agreement, the FinalSEA discloses where comments of the Tribe were not incorporated.FAA will also include the comments received from the Tribe as part ofthe administrative record and make them available to the public uponrequest pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.

10c. As noted later in the comment, the noise study area for the FinalSEA included the area of potential impact of the SFAR and revisionsto the commercial air tour routes. The statement in the Final SEA iscorrect. When the recommendations for action in Section 3(b)(1) areread in the context of the statute, which is entitled the National ParkOverflights Act, and harmonized with other portions of Section 3 andthe statute, it is clear that the mandate is limited to the GCNP. Section3(a) is the legislative finding that supports the requirement for action inSection 3(b). Section 3(a) finds that “Noise associated with aircraftoverflights at the Grand Canyon National Park is causing a significantadverse effect on the natural quiet and experience of the park…”Section 1.3 in the Final EA has been revised to clarify the basis for thestatement and to acknowledge the Tribe’s different interpretation of theAct.

There has been extensive noise analysis of impacts on tribal landsoutside the GCNP. Chapter 4 and Appendix A contain noise contoursand analysis of representative locations on tribal lands. Sections 4.2and 4.3 of Chapter 4 have been revised to provide detailed analysis ofthe noise and visual impacts on traditional cultural properties onHualapai lands. The FAA determined that the Preferred Alternativewould have adverse effects on some Hualapai TCPs identified duringNHPA Section 106 consultation. . Impacts on wildlife are addressed inSection 4.9.

7


10d. SEA continues to refer to the “GCNP” and “GCNP StudyArea” in many instances where it is not appropriate. Thereferences in the SEA should be changed to Grand Canyon,except of course where the information or analysis truly appliesto the GCNP.

10e. SEA’s conclusions that the proposed actions will have notsignificant impact on the Hualapai Tribe are inadequate,premature and not supported by the record in numerous respects.First the SEA inappropriately applies the residential standard toassess impacts on the non-Park lands. The FAA is de facto usingthe Part 150 residential noise standard to evaluate noise impactson the Hualapai Reservation, despite some suggestions to thecontrary at 4-2 and 4-20 in the SEA. Use of this standard on theReservation is inappropriate, the appropriate noise thresholds arethose that correspond to the land uses within the area ofexposure: the audibility and noticeability thresholds developedfor comparable land uses in the Park.

The DSEA does not identify a decibel level for evaluation ofnoise impacts on TCPs for which a quiet setting is an attribute oran important aspect of its current use. Nor does the DSEAidentify any threshold applied to impacts on areas of the HualapaiReservation used for nonresidential recreational outdoorpurposes. FAA has apparently discarded an approach toevaluating noise impacts on these non-TCP outdoor recreationalareas that was similar to the approach used for TCPs. The FAAomitted from the DSEA a statement that had been included thePreliminary DSEA, “FAA considered whether predictedincreases in noise would substantially impair the enjoyment andvalue of areas in the vicinity of areas in the vicinity of theGCNP.” The DSEA asserts that aircraft noise levels under allalternatives “are substantially below any established threshold ofsignificant impact” and that noise levels generally would notinterfere with normal outdoor speech communication on NativeAmerican lands. Many of the noise levels on the HualapaiReservation are above the audibility and noticeability thresholds

10d. As to the applicability of the mandate in Pub. L. 100-91, seeResponse to Comment 10c above. FAA has clarified the reference tothe GCNP, GCNP Study Area, and Grand Canyon in Chapter 3 of theFinal SEA.

10e. FAA appropriately used the thresholds in FAA’s establishedenvironmental policies and procedures, which in turn reference the Part150 land use compatibility guidelines, to evaluate the significance ofchanges in noise levels on the Hualapai Reservation. The text of theFinal SEA has been revised to clarify this.

FAA did not claim that average daily noise levels below 68 LAEQ12hrhave no impact on land uses and that noise below these levels can haveno impact on ordinary activities. Rather, in the Final SEA the FAAevaluated whether increases in noise would have a significant impactconsidering existing noise exposure levels. Unlike the policies avowedunder Department of Transportation Act Section 4(f), those underNEPA, allow FAA to focus primarily upon the reaction of people tonoise in determining whether there is a significant impact in the landuse category.

The text in the Final SEA has also been revised to clarify the legalbasis for use of the Ldn methodology and thresholds in rural andNative American settings. The Ldn system is the best availablemeasure of noise exposure to identify significant impact on the qualityof the human environment and is the only noise metric with asubstantial body of scientific data on the reactions of people to noise.The noise zones adopted by the NPS for the GCNP reflect thresholdsfor determining the onset of impact, not noise level limits for operationof aircraft or land use compatibility guidelines analogous to 14 CFRPart 150. (NPS continued the use of the noticeability threshold for timeabove analysis for developed areas of the GCNP and the Sanup andMarble Canyon areas, designated Zone 1. NPS adopted an audibilitythreshold for more noise sensitive areas of the GCNP known as Zone2). The NPS authority to establish policy regarding noise impactmethodology for GCNP is limited to the area within the park boundary.

8

# Commentor Date Comment Responsethat the FAA and NPS developed for the Park.

Except for the small developed area of Grand Canyon West, theHualapai Reservation lands within the area of noise exposure arelargely undeveloped and are used for contemplative, ceremonial,hiking, hunting, preservation and other such uses which areextremely noise sensitive. The FAA omitted the description thatthe Hualapai provided to describe the noise expectations of theHualapai residents and visitors other than Hualapai’s using TCPs.

Peach Springs, the residential area on the Reservation, is outsidethe area of noise exposure. The Part 150 standards do not applyto any of the land uses on the Hualapai Reservation within thearea of noise exposure. Part 150 establishes standard for use onurban and suburban land uses and traditional recreationalactivities, which are not those engaged in at the Park or theHualapai lands within the area of noise exposure. Outdoor sportsarena events are not comparable to private ceremonies at TCPs orobservation of nature, and spectators at such events are far lesssensitive to noise than hikers or Hualapai ceremonial participants.

The SEA should apply explicit rational standards (or thresholds)using the best data available to evaluate the environmentalimpacts of the proposed actions on the Hualapai Reservation.The best data available is the noise impact thresholds applied tothe GCNP, not Part 150. There is no justification for using aresidential noise standard or for refusing to state the thresholdwhen reliable data is available for the environmental settingsfound on the Reservation.

FAA should give the Tribe the benefit of the better data and mostappropriate noise impact assessment methodology for theresource characteristics of the Reservation. The trust duty of theFAA supports the use of a noise threshold comparable to thatused for the Park. The United States, through NPS and FAA,cannot treat its lands in a preferential manner that operates to thedetriment of Tribal lands. FAA must protect the trust resourcesof the Tribe from the adverse impacts of aircraft overflights andmust articulate an explicit, rational threshold for evaluating the

NPS may not exceed its delegated authority and establish similarthresholds for areas of the Hualapai Reservation or other neighboringlands. The mandate of Section 3 of the National Park Overflights Actto substantially restore natural quiet as defined by these thresholdsapplies only to the GCNP. See, Change in Noise EvaluationMethodology for Air Tour Operations over the GCNP, Notice ofDisposition of Public Comments and Adoption of Final NoiseEvaluation Methodology, Discussion of Comments, Response 3,Disagreement With Two-Zone System, Response 4, Tribal TrustResources, 64 Fed Reg. 38006, 38008-9, July 14, 1999.

As to why the trust responsibility does not compel a different result,see the above-referenced NPS notice at 38008-9. See also, Responseto Comment 8d. (the current noise modeling is the best available).

FAA properly concluded in the SEA that aircraft noise levels under allalternatives “are substantially below any established threshold ofsignificant impact” and that noise levels generally would not interferewith normal outdoor speech communication on Native Americanlands. The Preferred Alternative, which includes a limitation onoperation and many modifications to routes to reduce impacts to areasof concern to the Hualapai Tribe, reduces overall noise levels on theHualapai Reservation. The Hualapai Tribe has not shown how FAA’suse of 65 Ldn as the threshold of significance for noise impacts isunreasonable.

FAA acknowledged in Section 4.1.1 that the decibel level standards inthe Part 150 guidelines have limited applicability in assessing hownoise impacts the uses and values of TCPs. FAA evaluated each TCPon a case-by-case basis, using supplemental noise modeling ofrepresentative locations. As to Hualapai TCPs, see Response toComment 10c above. For a general description of how FAA assessedthe significance of adverse impacts to six of the 40 TCPs identified bythe Hualapai Tribe during NHPA Section 106 consultation, see Section4.1.1, as revised. Sections 4.2 and 4.3 in the Final SEA have beenupdated to provide a detailed explanation.

As to non-TCP outdoor recreational activities, the FAA appropriatelyused its well-established thresholds and the Part 150 guidelines. The

9

# Commentor Date Comment Responsesignificance of impacts on Tribal trust resources.

SEA should assess impacts on the environmental settings foundon the Reservation using the noise impact thresholds applied tothe GCNP. The threshold used to evaluate significant impact onthe developed tourist area at Grand Canyon West should be thesame as the onset of impact threshold applied to the comparablearea of the Park, i.e. the Zone one threshold. The Zone twothresholds, for more sensitive areas in the Park, should be used tomeasure impact on the areas that the Tribe manages forwilderness and wildlife values and for undeveloped recreationaluse. The Zone Two threshold should also be used for TCPs.

non-traditional cultural property types of outdoor recreational activitieson the Hualapai Reservation include hiking, camping, and boating towhich Part 150 guidelines have relevance. The recreational categoryof land uses includes parks, resorts, and camps and water recreation.Because Part 150 guidelines apply and the mandate in Pub. L. 100-91does not, FAA did not include the text supplied by the Hualapai Tribethat described the noise expectations of Hualapai Reservation residentsand visitors at sites other than TCPs.

The “suggestion to the contrary” (at page 4-2 and 4-20) referenced bythe Tribe was the statement in Section 4.1.1 of the Draft SEA that“FAA relied upon [the Part 150] guidelines where the land usesspecified were relevant to the value, significance, and enjoyment of theland uses in the study area. The federal courts have held that FAAmay rely upon Part 150 guidelines to determine whether noise impactsresult in a use of properties protected under Section 4(f) that are usedfor traditional recreational activities. However, Part 150 guidelinesgoverning nature exhibits, zoos, and other such activities are notrelevant in assessing impacts on land uses such as the role of a wildliferefuge used for bird watching. As Section 4(f) applies to historicproperties on the Hualapai Reservation, FAA has narrowed thestatement to so specify.

The SEA appropriately refers to Part 150 land use compatibilitystandards for residential land uses. There are residential land uses inthe vicinity of Tusayan within the area of noise exposure. Tominimize confusion the statement in the Final SEA has been revised todelete the reference to residential and traditional recreational activities.FAA did not apply Part 150 guidelines to private ceremonies at TCPs,as discussed above. As explained below, though requested to do so,the Hualapai Tribe did not provide the FAA with sufficient data todetermine whether and where there are non-TCP nature observationactivities comparable to wildlife refuges on the Reservation.

At page 4-4 of the SEA, FAA specified that the noticeability threshold(3 decibels above ambient noise levels) was used to measure the onsetof noise impact to the Hualapai Reservation and other lands adjacent tothe GCNP. This is the same threshold used by the NPS for the SanupPlateau portions of the GCNP, which are adjacent to the Hualapai

10

# Commentor Date Comment ResponseReservation. During NHPA Section 106 consultation and consultationwith the Hualapai Tribe as a cooperating agency on this SEA, FAAexplained that the same categories of ambient noise values forvegetative categories were used for lands adjoining the GCNP as wereused for the GCNP. Final SEA at 4-3.

FAA environmental policies and procedures provide for the FAA toconduct supplemental noise analysis, on a case by case basis, asappropriate. Although Department of Section 4(f) does not apply toNative American Reservation lands, FAA sought to address thecomments of the Hualapai Tribe on the preliminary Draft SEA. FAAasked the Tribe to specify non-TCP outdoor areas of concern anddescribe the uses and activities of the sites. FAA also asked forgeographic coordinates so that supplemental noise modeling could bedone to evaluate how effects would be expected to change at these siteswhere it was determined that Part 150 guidelines were inappropriate.As to claims concerning impacts on tourist activities such as GuanoPoint, see Response to Comment 10h. The Tribe otherwise generallydescribed a youth camp and hiking trails, but did not provideinformation about usage to enable the FAA to determine that Part 150guidelines were not relevant. Nor did the Tribe provide geographiccoordinates for supplemental noise modeling. As discussed above, thedescription of reliance upon Part 150 guidelines has been clarified toreflect that, based upon the best available data, TCPs are the only landuse outside the GCNP to which Part 150 guidelines may not apply.Absent necessary information from the Tribe, FAA was authorized torely upon Part 150 guidelines.

As to Federal authority to regulate use of the navigable airspacenotwithstanding state, local, or tribal land use plans, see the Responseto Comment 8g, above. In any event, there was no inconsistencybetween the Preferred Alternative and Hualapai tribal land use plans.The Tribe provided plans for development of Grand Canyon WestAirport and tribal resolutions limiting access to certain sacred sites incertain areas of the Reservation, but did not provide land use plans forthe Reservation. FAA dropped the sentence in the preliminary DSEAthat referred to substantial impairment of Hualapai outdoor recreationalactivities because areas outside the GCNP are not protected propertieswithin the meaning of Section 4(f) and are therefore not subject to its

11


10f. Second, the DSEA erroneously uses the No ActionAlternative as a proxy for significant impact. The No ActionAlternative is not the relevant baseline. Congress recognized thatthere were already significant adverse impacts from overflightswhen it enacted the National Park Overflights Act. The relevantquestion is whether each alternative has a significant impactusing the appropriate decibel standard for each land use, notwhether the alternative is worse than the already unacceptablesituation.

standard.

The FAA appropriately used the noticeability hold to measure theonset of noise impacts on the Hualapai Reservation and other landsadjoining the GCNP. FAA’s use of the noticeability threshold wasupheld by the DC Circuit in Grand Canyon Air Tour Coalition v. FAA.As explained in detail above the NPS noticeability and audibilitythresholds do not apply to lands adjacent to GCNP, only to GCNP.These thresholds are inputs for purposes of noise modeling and do notsubstitute for standards to evaluate the significance of noise impacts.

10f. It is critical to have a baseline condition against which to comparethe environmental consequences of the proposed action and thereasonable alternatives. See, CEQ “Considering Cumulative EffectsUnder the NEPA”, January 1997, page 23. Without it, there is no wayto determine the effects of the proposed action on the environment.The FAA’s choice of the existing project baseline and analysis ofalternatives complies with the procedural requirements. The NoAction Alternative is the existing condition where, as here, byoperation of law it would continue should the Preferred Alternative notbe implemented (CEQ Response to 40 Most Asked QuestionsConcerning NEPA Regulations, Question 3, 46 Fed Reg. 18026, 18027(1981)). Under Pub. L. 100-91, the effect of disapproving theproposed action would be to extend SFAR 50-2 until the mandate ofsubstantial restoration is achieved Pub. L. 100-91 does not require theFAA to compare the proposed action with the conditions in the vicinityof the GCNP before the Act was enacted or air tours began. The Actdoes not mention a baseline and the legislative finding of significantadverse effects in Section 3(a) relates to the GCNP. The FAA may notuse the findings in the Act as a proxy for the analysis and comparisonof alternatives required by NEPA. As noted above in the Response toComment 10e, the Hualapai Tribe does not have a land use plan thatconflicts with the proposed action. Nor did the Tribe provideadditional information necessary to determine whether Part 150guidelines are applicable to non-TCP outdoor recreational activities onthe Reservation. FAA properly used the Part 150 guidelines todetermine the potential significance of impacts in these circumstances.

12


10g. Third, the SEA wrongly asserts that there will be nosignificant impacts on TCPs. The SEA ignores the informationprovided by the Tribe indicating that noise and visual impacts ontraditional cultural properties located on the HualapaiReservation will be significant. As requested by the Tribe, FAAshould have completed consultation pursuant to Section 106 onthe most critical and sensitive TCP areas identified by the Tribebefore issuing the DSEA. The Tribe has advised that naturalquiet and a quiet setting is essential and that audible aircraft noiseand visual intrusion from aircraft have significant adverse effectson TCPs. Based upon this information, the only conclusionsupported is that there will be potentially significant adverseimpacts. FAA’s noise data indicates that the aircraft will beabove the audibility threshold at some or all of the TCP areas.The turn around of the Blue 2 air tour route on the western end,for example, may significantly impact some of the Tribe’s mostsensitive and important TCPs disclosed to FAA.

Table 2.1 wrongly asserts that there will be no significant impactson these TCPs, including visual impacts of the No ActionAlternative and historical and archeological impacts forAlternatives 2 and 3. Table 2.1 contradicts the DSEA’sacknowledgement that the Preferred Alternative, with a limitationon overflights, will increase noise to 39.6 at the TCP identifiedby the Hualapai Tribe as H10. This is far above the audibilitythreshold. In addition, the Tribe previously objected toAlternatives 2 and 3 because of impacts on TCPs in the DiamondCreek area and on National and Prospect Canyon.

SEA does not define the Area of Potential Effect under NHPASection 106 regulations correctly and therefore underestimatesthe environmental impacts of the proposed actions. Given thenew concerns about the definition of the Area of Potential Effect,all of the alternatives may have significant adverse impacts onHualapai TCPs. The FAA has no justification for defining theAPE as three miles on either side of the centerline. The AirTraffic Noise Screening Model does not provide a rational basisbecause it does not apply to air traffic actions at elevations at

10g. See response to Comment 10c, above as to TCPs. .

The Preferred Alternative would move the turnaround away fromQuartermaster and Horse Flat Canyon and toward the main canyon andGCNP.

Alternative 2 was preferred over Alternatives 3 and 4 becauseAlternative 3 would require a northward extension of the SFRAboundary that would interfere with the commercial aircraft arrivalroute into Las Vegas McCarran Airport. Additionally, Alternative 4was not preferred because it would impact especially critical andsensitive Hualapai TCPs and the residential areas of the HualapaiReservation. Alternative 4 would be most costly in fuel usage for thecommercial air tour operators.

The three-mile APE was derived from prior studies conducted by theUS Department of Defense and from FAA’s Air Traffic ScreeningNotice (ATSN). The Air Traffic Screening Notice is based uponscientific research showing in areas of cumulative aircraft noiseexposure outside of DNL 60 dB, changes in air traffic routes that cause5 decibel or greater increases in noise are likely to result in communityreaction. See, Final SEA Appendix C. The Screening Noticeaddresses higher altitude routes and louder types of aircraft than aretypical of air tour operations in the Grand Canyon. FAA could have

13

# Commentor Date Comment Responseissue in the proposed actions, it is derived from the same sourceof scientific knowledge that supports the Integrated Noise Model,which has been modified to address the unique terrain of theGrand Canyon, it is intended to be applied where an EA is notrequired, and it is designed to address noise on residentialcommunities, not TCPs. Nothing in the ATNS Manual showshow three miles from three miles from the centerline developedfor higher altitude flights over residential areas could meet thedefinition of the APE at 36 CFR 800.16(d). The DSEA indicatesthat the noise exposure area is far larger. The 20-decibel noisecontour depicted in the DSEA maps extend substantially fartherthan three miles from the western air tour route lines. Theproposed actions’ effects on critical and sensitive canyons andareas studied under Phase I of the Statement of Work must bereexamined in light of a correct definition of the APE and theactual noise exposure. We also need clarification of the extent towhich the blue direct route crosses National, Prospect, andMohawk Canyons. The current route map seems to show theroutes further within the center of these canyons that the initialmaps provided.

10h. Fourth, the SEA fails to consider the adverse economicimpacts of overflights on the Hualapai Reservation. SEA needs tobe rewritten to include specific analysis of the proposed actions’impacts on economic activity on the Hualapai Reservation,including tourism at Grand Canyon West, Diamond Bar Creek,river running, and guided hunting trips.

Instead, the DSEA suggests that the interests of all of the tribesare “spiritual and traditional”. DSEA at 3-2. The DSEA Sectionentitled “Socioeconomic Impacts” needs to be revised to includespecific analysis of the proposed actions’ impacts on economicactivity on the Hualapai Reservation, including tourism at GrandCanyon West, Diamond Bar Creek, river running and guidedhunting trips. The proposed limitation on flights would havesignificant socioeconomic impacts.

Overflights (aircraft that do not land on the Hualapai

defined the APE as one mile on either side of the centerline, howevermore conservatively use three miles on either side. To addressconcerns raised by the Tribe and THPO in July 1999 about FAA’snoise standards, among other things, FAA first agreed to use 3 insteadof 5 decibel changes in noise as the APE. Subsequently, FAA and theHualapai Tribe and THPO agreed to define the APE to include the 20LAEQ12hr noise contour area for the Preferred Alternative in the June1999 SEA and the October 1997 Reevaluation for the Notice ofClarification, and certain other areas. It should be noted that the FAA,Hualapai Tribe, and THPO reached agreement on the APE after thesecomments were submitted. For more detail, see Sections 3.6.4 and 4.2of the Final SEA, which have been updated to describe the NHPASection 106 consultation with the Tribe.

10h. The Proposed Final Rule, Commercial Air Tour Limitation in theGrand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area, Sect.93.319(f) provides an exception to the allocations for commercial airtour operations conducted in support of the Hualapai tourism interests.This exception should eliminate adverse economic impacts on theHualapai economic development efforts at Grand Canyon West.Section 4.6, Social/Socioeconomic Impacts, has been revised todiscuss this modification to the Proposed Final Rule.

Following consultations with the Hualapai Tribe, the FAA determinedthat the Proposed Action does not increase the number of commercialair tour flights over tourism areas (Diamond Bar Creek, river running,guided hunting trips, and hiking trails) at the west end of theReservation at 9500 feet MSL and above. Guano Point gets anincrease in the number of fixed-wing aircraft traveling on Blue Directsouth. However, FAA points out that Guano Point is located at GrandCanyon West Airport and currently 80 percent of the helicopter traffic

14

# Commentor Date Comment ResponseReservation) have an adverse economic impact on theReservation. The Tribe is carefully developing areas located onthe rim at Grand Canyon West for park-type tourism, has madecurrent improvements including a dining facility and scenic vistaat Guano Point, and hiking trails along the rim. The Tribe hasinvested $15 million in this and planning for furtherdevelopment, including a lodge at Quartermaster Canyon.Aircraft overflights on proposed Blue 2 and Green 4 will traverseGrand Canyon West. These routes should be appropriate locatedand overflights appropriately capped to provide visitors withprotection comparable to that provided to visitors in developedareas of the GCNP.

10i. SEA fails to consider impacts on certain endangered specieson the Hualapai Reservation and fails to evaluate impacts onother wildlife. SEA neglects to address impacts on theendangered Hualapai Mexican Vole. The statement in the DSEAthat monitoring suggests significant disturbances to peregrinesfrom overflights contradicts Table 2.1, which concludes that noneof the alternatives have significant impacts on endangeredspecies.

Chapter 4 of SEA must address impacts on other wildlife andwilderness areas as well as endangered species. Existing studiesdo not evaluate the long-term impacts of overflights on Big Horn

and 10-20 percent of the fixed-wing traffic landing at Grand CanyonWest in support of Hualapai economic development efforts pass byGuano Point. The remaining traffic continues on route at 5500 feetand above for fixed-wing and 5,000 feet for helicopters. In addition,Guano Point currently gets a significant amount of both ground and airvisitor activity. FAA is committed to revisiting the location ofcommercial air tour routes in the west end of the Reservation when theTribe has finalized its economic development plans for Grand CanyonWest.

This part of the reservation experiences commercial air tour overflightsat this time. The Proposed Alternative will eliminate portions ofGreen-4 and Blue-2 east and south of Surprise Canyon and will limitthe number of commercial air tours operating on these routes (that donot qualify for the operations limitation exception noted above). Thesemodifications will reduce environmental impacts to the west end of thereservation.

To clarify that Section 3.3 addresses economic interests, the Final SEAhas been revised at page 3-2 to state, “The following is a summary ofeach community’s interests, including spiritual, traditional and otherinterests.”

See Response to Comment 10e for discussion of impacts on non-TCP,outdoor recreational areas on the Hualapai Reservation.

10i. The Final SEA considers the potential impacts on the endangeredand threatened plant and animal species found in the GCNP and theadjoining Hualapai Reservation. (See Section 3.7) The Final SEA,Section 4.9, has been updated to summarize the results of Section 7ESA consultation. NPS, as the designated lead agency for thisconsultation, completed the Biological Assessment and providedcomments to the USFWS on the Biological Opinion. In its BiologicalOpinion the USFWS concurred that the only listed species likely to beaffected by this action were the California Condor, Mexican spottedowl and bald eagle. The Biological Opinion concludes that theProposed Action is “not likely to jeopardize” the continued existenceof these three species. The USFWS also concurred with the NPS that

15

# Commentor Date Comment ResponseSheep.

10j. Noise Impacts on the Hualapai Reservation should beassessed against the two-zone audibility standard and not againstthe residential standard.

10k. SEA fails to analyze the significant socioeconomic impactson the Hualapai Tribe of treating Hualapai transport flights astour flights subject to caps. The Tribe estimates that incomefrom transport flights comprises 45% of its general fund budget.These flights have a minimal environmental impact on theGCNP. The Tribe is taking steps to minimize environmentalimpacts associated with these flights. As part of its land useplans, the Tribe selected landing sites to avoid sacred sites andcontinues to ask the FAA to ensure that flight routes avoid suchsites. Allowing these flights to continue without a cap strikes areasonable balance between protecting the resources of the Parkand the Tribe’s interests. The trust duty requires the FAA toavoid adverse impacts on Hualapai resources. Overflights maketrust lands incompatible with outdoor tourism and recreation.Reservation transport flights, on the other hand, are vital to theTribe’s realization of trust income from the Tribe’s trust lands.The Tribe recommends three alternatives to address its concernsin the comments on the proposed caps.

the Proposed Action is “not likely to adversely affect” the deserttortoise, Hualapai Mexican vole, black-footed ferret, southwesternwillow flycatcher, or the Yuma clapperrail. An incidental takestatement was included in the Biological Opinion along with terms andconditions implementing reasonable and prudent measures as acondition for exemption of the Proposed Action form prohibitions ofSection 9 of the ESA. Included as part of the terms and conditions ofthe Biological Opinion, the NPS and FAA will develop and implementa monitoring program to further assess the effects of the ProposedAction on listed species. NPS has agreed to include the Desert big hornsheep in this monitoring program.

10j. See Response to Comment 10e above.

10k. Final SEA, Section 4.6 has been revised to incorporatemodifications made to the Proposed Final Commercial Air TourLimitation in the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight RulesArea (Proposed Final Operations Limitation Rule). Followingcomments submitted by the Hualapai Tribe and Tribal members, theFAA and NPS determined that the Operations Limitation Rule, asproposed in the July 9, 1999 NPRM, 64 Fed. Reg. 37304, wouldsignificantly adversely impact the Hualapai Tribe’s economicdevelopment efforts at Grand Canyon West. The Hualapai Tribe iscarefully developing Grand Canyon West for tourism and the incomederived from these operations currently comprises 45% of its generalfund budget. In order to support the Tribe’s economic developmentefforts at Grand Canyon West, several federal agencies, including theFAA, have provided federal grant money for various improvementprojects. The Federal government has a general trust responsibility toNative American Tribes to support their efforts for economicdevelopment and self-sufficiency. Along with the general trustresponsibility, the existence of a trust duty between the United Statesand a Native American Tribe can be inferred from the provisions of astatute, treaty or other agreement. Congress has enacted a number ofstatutes that promote tribal self-sufficiency, including the Indian

16


10l. SEA wrongly concludes that the proposed actions will haveno adverse environmental justice impacts. The DSEA at 4-24incorrectly and misleadingly states: “The Proposed Action haseliminated existing air tour routes…over the HualapaiReservation except in the vicinity of Grand Canyon WestAirport. The Supplemental EA indicates that the ProposedAction would not result in significant noise impacts on minorityand low income populations in the study area.” The blue directroutes will still traverse the eastern portion of the Reservation. Inaddition, the green (sic) fixed wing route will fly over GrandCanyon West Airport. Both routes will overfly sensitive TCPsused by the Hualapai for ceremonial purposes. Air tour routeshave a significant adverse impact on TCPs, tourism, andReservation employment.

Financing Act of 1974, as amended 25 U.S.C. Section 1451 et seq.The Indian Financing Act of 1974 declares the policy of Congress “tohelp develop and utilize Indian resources, both physical and human, toa point where the Indians will fully exercise responsibility for theutilization and management of their own resources….” Thus, in orderto fulfill the governments trust responsibility to the Hualapai Tribe, theProposed Final Operations Limitation Rule has been modified toprovide an exception to the commercial air tour limitations if specificconditions are met. The conditions are set forth in the Proposed FinalRule, Commercial Air Tour Limitation in the Grand Canyon NationalPark Special Flight Rules Area, Section 93.319(f). The RegulatoryEvaluation accompanying the Rules details the adverse economicimpacts that are mitigated by the exception to the Proposed FinalOperations Limitation Rule.

10l. The commenter is correct about the statement at page 4-24. Thisstatement in the Draft SEA did not address existing blue direct routesused for transporting passengers from Las Vegas to Tusayan. TheProposed Action would eliminate existing air tour routes in the vicinityof Supai Village over the Havasupai Reservation. This same route thatwould be eliminated is one of three that overflies the east side of theHualapai Reservation. The portions of the existing two routes on thewest side of the Hualapai Reservation east and south of SurpriseCanyon are also being eliminated. Blue Direct South is being shiftednorthward approximately one mile and the minimum altitude is beingraised from 8,500 feet MSL to 9,500 feet MSL. The statement in theFinal SEA has been revised accordingly. As a result of these measuresand others, the Preferred Alternative results in a net overall decrease innoise over all Native American lands in the vicinity of the GCNP.Peach Springs on the Hualapai Reservation is outside the noiseexposure area (the 20 LAeq12h). The noise analysis in Section 4.1indicates that the Preferred Alternative does not result in significantimpacts on Native American populations. The levels of commercialair tour noise on the Hualapai Reservation are well below establishedthresholds of significant impact. As to the claim that adverse effectswould result from the routes that would continue on the west end, seeResponse to Comment 10h.

17


10m. SEA should include more specific analysis of theenvironmental impacts of each of the alternatives. Table 2.1contains only cursory statements, such as “not significant”without any meaningful analysis or explanation. This Tablewould lead a decisionmaker or member of the public to concludethat there is no significant basis for choosing the PreferredAlternative or the No Action Alternative over any of the otheralternatives. Table 2.1 does not support the DSEA’s conclusionthat the Preferred Alternative is the central transit route becauseof the significant environmental impacts associated with the otheralternatives.

10n. SEA should consider alternative tour routes and a realalternative blue direct route. The alternatives differ only in thatthey have alternative direct routes. At the very least, SEA shouldconsider an alternative that omits any tour route on the west end.SEA fails to analyze a blue direct route alternative that avoids theHualapai Reservation. The Tribe is concerned that these bluedirect routes will have significant impacts on canyons thatcontain TCPs. The absence of a blue direct route that avoids theReservation renders the range of alternatives presentedunreasonable. The Tribe appreciates and supports the concept

As to TCPs, assuming that historic properties are within the scope ofthe Executive Order on Environmental Justice, the PreferredAlternative does not cause disproportionately high and adverseimpacts. There are adverse effects on some Hualapai TCPs, but theseeffects are not significant. Under the Preferred Alternative, theminimum altitude of Blue Direct South would be raised and it wouldbe shifted north approximately one mile to reduce impacts on Hualapaihistoric properties. These mitigation measures, and others included inthe Section 106 PA, assure that there will be no potentially significantimpact on TCPs.

10m. All impact categories required under NEPA and FAA Order1050.1D were analyzed in Chapter 4 of the SEA. Table 2.1 and theFinal SEA have been updated to include more specific analysis basedupon ESA Section 7 and NHPA Section 106 consultation. Table 2.1 ismerely intended to summarize the conclusions that are supported bythe detailed analysis in Chapter 4. In response to this comment, theTable has been revised to clarify that there are adverse effects for allalternatives in the category of Historic, Archeological, and Culturalimpacts. As the projected noise levels for the No Action werecomparable to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, and Section 106 consultationwas only completed for Alternative 2, it was inappropriate andspeculative to characterize impacts of the No Action in this category assignificant. To make the Table more useful in comparing alternatives,the percent of the GCNP that would experience substantial restorationof natural quiet by 2008 has been added.

10n. The FAA developed the Proposed Action and a reasonable rangeof commercial air tour routes examined in this SEA in accordance withits statutory authorities and P. L. 100-91 for the substantial restorationof natural quiet to the GCNP. FAA considered, but did not retain fordetailed study an alternative blue direct route that would avoidtransiting the Reservation altogether, as explained in detail in Section2.1, Proposal 10. The Hualapai Tribes Blue Direct North proposal wasnot studied in detail because it would not meet the purpose and needfor the action of substantially restoring natural quiet to the GCNP.FAA has determined that the Preferred Alternative would adversely

18

# Commentor Date Comment Responsebehind the suggestions of an alternative blue direct route made byenvironmental groups to avoid the Reservations. Blue directshould skirt the reservation to the south or could traverse north ofthe Sanup and Toroweap/Shinumo Flight Free Zones and accessTusayan Airport via Dragon Corridor, Zuni Point Corridor, or atransit corridor that would pass through the eastern portion of theToroweap/Shinumo Flight Free Zone but would avoid theHualapai and Havasupai Reservations.

10o. SEA should disclose that weather exit routes are part of theproposed actions and analyze the environmental impacts of theseroutes. The DSEA assumes that the weather exit routes will have“minimal environmental impacts” because they “are used lessthan five percent of the time.” DSEA at 4-9. This estimatesounds low considering the frequency of storms in the area. Weurge the FAA to develop a reasoned estimate of the usage and notrely upon staff judgment. Because these routes cross some of theHualapai’s most sensitive canyons, the Tribe and FAA need toknow the impact on TCPs in these canyons. The route mapsshould be revised to depict the weather exit routes and theimpacts should be modeled and analyzed. The SEA shouldreference the limitations placed on the use of weather routes aswell as FAA’s commitment to monitor the use of these routes andmake changes as necessary to protect the Tribe’s TCPs and thePark’s Sanup FFZ. During the May 1999 meeting, we discussedthe need to reference the strict limitations that would be placedon use of the weather routes in the DSEA, the maps, andoperating manuals. We are discouraged to see that FAA has notincluded any of these safeguards in the proposed rules or theDSEA.

10p. SEA wrongly concludes that the proposed actions will notconstitute constructive use of Hualapai lands. The DOT Section4(f) section of the DSEA acknowledges that “noise levels whichsubstantially interfere with the use and value of [Section 4(f)]properties or preclude activities occurring at such properties

affect six of the 40 TCPs identified by the Hualapai Tribe duringSection 106 consultation. The Section 106 PA includes a monitoringand mitigation program to address these adverse effects. If necessaryto address adverse effects based upon further analysis of additionalTCPs and the results of the monitoring program, the FAA and NPShave committed to consider other alternative commercial air tourroutes to minimize overflights over the Hualapai Reservation. Thiswill be done either as part of the Comprehensive Noise ManagementPlan or according to the schedule set forth in the PA.

10o. The weather routes contained on the chart are only a depiction toprovide the commercial air tour operators with a general idea for acourse of action if weather is encountered, and therefore are not part ofthis undertaking. The chart will contain specific language related tothe use of a “weather route”. Flights on such “routes” only occur whenpilots encounter bad weather that has not been forecast. When poorweather is forecast, air tours are cancelled. Therefore, the use ofweather routes is infrequent. As part of the comprehensive noisemanagement, FAA and NPS will address any further concerns and anysignificant new information regarding use of these routes and potentialimpacts to TCPs. The route maps and FAA’s sectional charts that willbe published with the proposed Final Rules will indicate that operatorson Blue 2 and Green 4 that encounter bad weather may not use theweather routes. Only air tour operators using Blue Direct North andSouth may use the weather “routes” depicted on the map. When theyuse weather ‘routes,” they must file deviation reports with the FAA’sLas Vegas Flight Standards District Office (FSDO). The FSDO willmonitor use of these routes. The route maps and aeronautical chartshave been modified to include a caption identifying the weather routesas “weather routes” rather than just a dashed line and referral to themap key.

10p. Section 4.3 in the Final SEA has been updated to evaluatewhether adverse effects on some of the TCPs identified by theHualapai during NHPA Section 106 consultation are minimal orsignificant, so as to constitute a use under DOT Section 4(f). Theconclusion referenced by the commenter related to the GCNP, not

19

# Commentor Date Comment Responsewould therefore constitute a constructive use of property.” TheTenth Circuit Court of Appeals held in National Parks andConservation Association v. FAA, 998 F.2d at 1531 that “[t]herelevant inquiry is…whether the project would have a‘significant’ impact on the lands.” Accordingly, the properthresholds for the Section 4(f) analysis are the audibility andnoticeability thresholds discussed above.

The DSEA concludes that “it does not appear that constructiveuse of Section 4(f) properties would occur” on the basis of“accepted” thresholds and residential standards for noise impacts.DSEA at 4-23. When the appropriate standards discussed aboveare applied, it is clear that significant impacts and constructiveuse of Hualapai TCPs would occur under certain routealternatives. The likelihood of constructive use of these TCPssupports the selection of routes that avoid much of the HualapaiReservation.

A use of Hualapai lands that is not approved by the TribalCouncil or mandated by the United States Congress would be ataking, which is prohibited by federal law.

10q. SEA fails to address mitigation of any impacts exceptimpacts on TCPs and raises concerns that TCPs will not beavoided.

DSEA’s three-sentence discussion of mitigation in section 4.13 iswholly inadequate. It fails to discuss mitigation ofsocioeconomic impacts and endangered species and wildlifeimpacts. The socioeconomic impacts may be partially mitigatedby the NPS providing the Hualapai Tribe a share of the millions

TCPs. See, Section 4.1. Hualapai TCPs in the vicinity of the bluedirect routes are not located in pristine, quiet settings. These TCPsalready experience aircraft noise levels above those typical for a ruralarea. Under the Preferred Alternative, predicted annual average dailynoise levels remain below those typical of an urban environment. TheTribe’s contrary view is based upon the world before air tours existed,which is not the appropriate baseline for evaluating the effects of thisUndertaking. See, Response to Comment 10f. Based upon theimmediate and long-term mitigation measures in the Section 106Programmatic Agreement and careful review of the Hualapai Tribe’sethnographic studies, additional fixed wing overflights on the bluedirect routes under the Preferred Alternative would not destroy thevalue of nearby Hualapai TCPs. FAA recognizes that there is notmuch precedent for evaluating impacts on TCPs and perceptions oftraditional cultural practitioners. As part of the PA, if the monitoringdata reveals adverse effects on Hualapai TCPs, the FAA has agreed toconsider alternatives to further minimize overflights of the HualapaiReservation. FAA will reevaluate its determination of no use toaddress any significant new information resulting from the monitoringprogram. Alternatively, if there is a use of Hualapai TCPs underSection 4(f), then through the NEPA and Section 106 processes theFAA has determined that there is no feasible and prudent alternativeand has included all possible planning to minimize the harm resultingfrom the use. The noise levels of the Proposed Action and alternativesdo not rise to the level of a taking requiring compensation under theTenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The noise levels are allwell below accepted thresholds for residential land use at all points inthe Hualapai Reservation.

10q. Section 4.13 has been updated to describe monitoring andmitigation measures adopted for Hualapai TCPs, as part of aProgrammatic Agreement under NHPA Section 106 impacts and forendangered species. It has also been revised to discuss the exemptionfrom the proposed Final Rule (i.e. the Limitation on CommercialSFRA Operations) to avoid significant adverse socioeconomic impactson the Hualapai Tribe.

The sentences in the preliminary SEA were artifacts of the earlier

20

# Commentor Date Comment Responseof dollars in impact fees collected from air tour operators in theSFAR.

The Tribe is concerned that the FAA may back away from itscommitment to avoid TCPs in accordance with the NHPA.Sentences in the Preliminary DSEA pledging such avoidancewere omitted in the DSEA. The FAA also dropped the lastsentence of this section stating that the FAA would adopt allmeasures necessary to assure that the routes do not substantiallyinterfere with the religious practices of Native Americans.Mitigation would constitute a constitutionally allowableaccommodate of religion. FAA should again make thiscommitment, or at least explain why it has now decided not tomitigate its actions in this respect.

December 1996 Final EA. In that document the FAA committed not toimplement the air tour routes until Section 106 consultation wascompleted and to “avoid or address all potential adverse effects onproperties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Registerof Historic Places during the development of air tour routes.” Thiscommitment complies with Section 106, which requires Federalagencies that are unable to avoid adverse effects on historic properties,to enter into formal consultation and consider means to avoid ormitigate adverse effects to such properties. This commitment wasobsolete in June 1999, when the FAA had determined that it was notpossible to redesign the air tour routes to avoid potential impacts on allHualapai TCPs identified through Section 106 consultation. Section4.2 of the Final SEA documents how the FAA, in cooperation withNPS, as part of Section 106 consultation, also consulted with NativeAmerican tribes to protect traditional religious practices in accordancewith the American Indian Religious Freedom Act and Executive Order13007, Indian Sacred Sites. To the extent that the Religious FreedomRestoration Act continues to govern actions by Federal actions (seeCity of Boerne v. P.F, Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 138L.Ed2d 624, 1997 U.S. LEXIS 4035 (1997)), the Proposed Actionfulfills its requirements. Considering the monitoring and mitigationmeasures included in the Section 106 Programmatic Agreement,between the FAA, NPS Hualapai Tribe, Tribal Historic PreservationOfficer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, there willbe no substantial interference with religious practices of the HualapaiTribe.

11 Pete Imus, MemberHualapai Tribe

8/27/99 11. No comments on EA.

12 John PutnamClark CountyDepartment ofAviation

9/7/99 12a. FAA proposes to eliminate the most-used and highest-revenue route on the basis of concerns about possible impacts toNative American cultural or religious sites. E.g. 64 Fed Reg37,296, 37, 297 (July 9, 1999). However, FAA does not identifywith any specificity what resources are affected or what standardof impact FAA applies. Id. Without this information providingthe basis for the decision, the public has no ability to assess

12a. While the FAA certainly has the authority to manage the nation’sairspace, it has an equally compelling mandate under 100-91, whichrelates only to the GCNP; that is to assist the Department of Interior inachieving substantial restoration of natural quiet at GCNP. To thisend, the FAA while pursuing the mandate of Pub. L. 100-91 hascontinually sought to balance the interests of commercial air touroperators with the interests of GCNP ground visitors. .

21

# Commentor Date Comment Responsewhether FAA’s decision is justified or arbitrary.

Congress did not give the FAA the power to arbitrarily limitairspace. The United States Court of Appeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit recently stressed the need for agencies toidentify “intelligible principles” guiding their actions underpower delegated by Congress. American Trucking Ass’n v.EPA, No. 97-1440 (DC Cir. 1999)(“[W]hat EPA lacks is anydeterminate criterion for drawing lines. It has failed to stateintelligibly how much is too much.”) Neither the principles norbasic information appear to exist here. (Footnote: The problem isexacerbated by FAA’s decision to use different thresholds ofsignificance in nearly identical contexts. See e.g. Morongo Bandof Mission Indians v. FAA, 161 F.3d 569 (9th Cir.1998)(upholding FAA use of DNL 65 dB threshold ofsignificance of impacts to Native Americans)). FAA mustcarefully revisit its decision to avoid creating a precedent thatcould affect flights over thousands of sites across the West forwhich some cultural, historic, and/or religious claim could bemade.

FAA alone has the obligation and authority to manage thenation’s airspace. 49 USC 40103. This carries with it aresponsibility to be conscientious stewards of a limited, non-renewable and vital publicly held resource. Unfortunately, asairspace managers, the FAA may have to adopt regulations thatare not always fully compatible with the desires of the underlyingland users/owners. Nevertheless, the FAA’s first and foremostallegiance must continue to be the preservation of the public’sairspace in support of the national air transportation system.

The Blue-1 commercial air tour route traverses some of the mostsensitive backcountry habitation in the GCNP. In addition, its locationand associated environmental impacts raised significant concerns withthe Havasupai Tribe that reside under or near the flight path. Finally,the location of Blue-1 affected traditional cultural properties ofreligious and/or cultural significance to the Havasupai and HualapaiTribes. After much consultation with all parties concerned, includingthe commercial air tour industry, FAA determined to eliminate Blue-1and Blue-1A and the associated corridor through theToroweap/Shinumo Flight Free Zone (FFZ).

In a narrow sense, FAA did not go through the formal process ofevaluation recommended by National Register Bulletin 38 with theHavasupai Tribe and all other interested Tribes, except for theHualapai Tribe. As a first step with all of the tribes FAA used a broadapproach more sensitive to tribal concerns about confidentiality andprivacy. Rather than seeking to identify the specific location anddetermine the eligibility of potentially affected traditional culturalproperties for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.FAA consulted with tribal representatives and authorities in an effort tominimize overflights of properties in the areas to which they ascribedtraditional cultural and religious significance. The National RegisterBulletin 38 (pages 17-18) notes that in a broader sense such anapproach represents an excellent practice.

During NHPA Section 106 consultation since late 1996 and during thescoping process for the DSEA, the FAA identified various alternativeairspace and commercial air tour route configurations for Blue-1,including alternative locations and quiet technology aircraft. However,the FAA withdrew its proposal to continue a Blue-1 and Blue-1A andthe associated corridor through the Toroweap/Shinumo Flight FreeZone. This was primarily because of the mandate under Pub. L. 100-91 and the discovery that the cap on operations implemented pursuantto the December 1996 Final Rule would not effectively cap operations.The comments of the Havasupai Tribe concerning TCPs, alsosupported that decision. (See 61 FR 69302, 61 FR 69334; 62 FR26902, 26904, 26907; 62 FR 26906; 62 FR 66248; and 63 FR 38233).Finally, FAA also modified the routes on the west end of GCNP in an

22


12b. FAA’s proposed rules are not based on a solid foundation ofscience. FAA’s assessment of the “natural quiet” impacts of itsrule and the need for more extensive air tour overflight regulationare based on the indefensible methodology for assessing “naturalquiet” recently announced by NPS. 64 Fed. Reg. 38006 (July 14,

effort to address the concerns of the Hualapai Tribe while still pursuingthe mandate of Pub.L. 100-91.

As explained in the Final SEA, Chapter 4 (Sections 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3),and the Response to Comment 10e and 10g, above, the FAA used thesame criteria for evaluating impacts on Native American Tribes andtraditional cultural properties in the vicinity of the GCNP as were usedin evaluating the expansion of arrivals into Los Angeles InternationalAirport. In Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. FAA, 161 F.3d 569(9th Cir. 1998), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the FAA’suse of the DNL 65 dB criteria for residential land uses and the 3-decibel increase in noise to measure potential adverse effects. Notably,because Los Angeles Airport (LAX) arrivals are 16,000 feet aboveground level (AGL), there were no increases in noise predicated aboveone or two decibels on the Morongo Reservation. The FAAdetermined during Section 106 consultation that there would beadverse effects on six of 40 Hualapai TCPs identified during Section106 consultation. Here, in contrast to LAXs, GCNP SFRAcommercial air tour flights operate approximately 500 to 10,500 feetAGL. Although the Preferred Alternative eliminated one of the threeroutes over the Hualapai Reservation, and shifted one a mile north toreduce impacts on TCPs, the shift of additional air tours to these routesfrom Blue-1 would increase noise is areas underlying Blue DirectNorth and Blue Direct South. The FAA, in cooperation with the NPS,entered into a programmatic agreement with the Hualapai Tribe andTHPO, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to complywith Section 106. The PA reflects the dearth of precedent foraddressing effects on TCPs and perceptions of traditional practitioners.The Proposed Action is consistent with FAA’s statutory responsibilityto preserve the airspace in support of the national transportationsystem. As to precedential value for flights at higher altitudes and inthe western U.S., see the Response to Comment 8g.

12b. See, Change in Noise Evaluation Methodology for Air TourOperations over the GCNP, Notice of Disposition of Comments andAdoption of Final Noise Evaluation Methodology, Response 7,Ambient Sound Levels, Response 8, Audibility and Noticeability,Response 9, Hearing Aircraft Below Ambient Levels, Response 19,

23

# Commentor Date Comment Response1999). This methodology proposes to use two thresholds fordefining when the “natural quiet” in the Grand Canyon isexceeded – ambient levels plus three decibels in some portions ofthe Park and ambient levels minus eight decibels in others. Thisapproach is flawed at its core. “Natural quiet” can only mean onething. It cannot be both a level “three decibels above” and “eightdecibels below” the ambient. Just as importantly, the newlyestablished metric of eight decibels below ambient lacks acredible scientific basis. Given naturally occurring noise levelsin all portions of the Grand Canyon, the methodology wouldcount air tour aircraft as audible a sound energy levels that arebarely above the threshold of human hearing, even without themasking effects of background noise.

Model Validation Study, Response 20, Rulemaking Process and PublicComment, and Response 25, Terminology Used In the Notice, 64 FedReg. 38006, 38008-9, 38015, July 14, 1999. See also, proposed FinalRule for Commercial Air Tour Limitation in the GCNP SFRA, SectionIII, H8. This response supplements that provided as part of theDisposition of Comments on the Commercial Routes.

As the Clark County Comments on the Commercial Routes for theGCNP, 64 Fed Reg. 37191, July 9, 1999 included environmentalissues, FAA has addressed those issues in detail here as part of theFinal SEA. This response supplements that provided as part of theDisposition of Comments on the Commercial Routes Notice.

13 Hualapai Tribe,Teresa Leger andSusan G. Jordan

1/24/00 13a. The assertion in the Draft FSEA that there is no evidence ofpotential adverse impacts upon Desert bighorn sheep is incorrect.The Hualapai Department of Natural Resources has reported toFAA in consultation meetings, in written comments and inethnographic reports that the Desert bighorn sheep are startled byaircraft and are not found in areas in the vicinity of flight routeswhere they were found historically.

13b. The Tribe reiterates and emphasizes previous comments onTable 2.1, that all alternatives, including the No ActionAlternative, have significant adverse noise impacts, culturalresources impacts, Section 4(f) impacts, visual impacts,socioeconomic impacts, environmental justice impacts andwildlife impacts on the Hualapai Reservation. Because theadverse effects on Hualapai TCPs result from significant noiseand visual impacts, noise impacts and visual impacts aresignificant for all alternatives. The Tribe has previouslycommented extensively on these impacts and the socioeconomicimpacts and has also provided information indicating significantimpacts to wildlife species that are not listed as threatened or

13a. In its Biological Opinion, USFWS has included mitigationmeasures, including the development and implementation of amonitoring program to evaluate and mitigate impacts of the proposedaction on the listed species. Section 4.9 of the FSEA has been revisedto reflect the conclusion, terms and conditions of the BiologicalOpinion. Studies conducted by NPS indicate that while aircraft maystartle and momentarily alter the behavior of individual animals, thereis no evidence of negative impacts on animal populations or criticalhabitat. However, as part of the monitoring program, NPS has agreedto include the Desert bighorn sheep in its study of potential effects ofaircraft on species of concern.

13b. Table 2.1 is intended to provide a brief summary comparison ofeach of the alternatives. When determining the potentialenvironmental impacts of each separate alternative, including the NoAction Alternative, the FAA evaluates the potential environmentalimpacts to the then existing environmental conditions (or theenvironmental conditions should no action be taken). Table 2.1 hasbeen revised to clarify that there are adverse effects for all alternativesin the Historic, Archaeological and Cultural impact category. See alsoresponse to comment 10f, 10l and 10m.

24

# Commentor Date Comment Responseendangered. Because each of these impacts fallsdisproportionately on Native Americans, there are significantenvironmental justice impacts. Moreover, we do not need toelaborate again on the significant impact that would continue tobefall the Hualapai if the FAA were to select the No ActionAlternative.

13c. We wonder if the difficulty in revising Table 2.1 has more todo with the approach of the table than the actual disagreementabout the relative impacts of the various alternatives. Table 2.1assumes that a “yes” or “no” (or “adverse effect” or “no adverseeffect”) label can be meaningfully assigned for each category ofimpact across such a vast geographical area without somedescription of the location and extent of the impacts. As a result,Table 2.1 creates the erroneous impression that all of thealternatives have essentially the same impacts. This inherentproblem with the Table would remain even if FAA makes thechanges we have urged to correct the no significant impactentries (although the Table would be much more accurate than itis now). Therefore, unless Table 2.1 can be amended to brieflydescribe the impacts in a way that allows meaningful comparisonof the alternatives, it should be omitted.

13d. The expectations of the Indian people who reside in theGrand Canyon for their experience and activities there are asimportant (or more important) than the expectations of visitors inthe discussion of the physical and cultural resources and areassensitive to aircraft noise.

13e. The Tribe requests that the northern boundary of theHualapai Reservation be described as the center of the ColoradoRiver or for the purposes of the SEA, the Tribe would not objectto the northern boundary being described as lying within theColorado River.

13c. The FAA declines to omit Table 2.1 from the Final SEA. Section2.1.5 clearly describes the intent of Table 2.1 to provide a briefsummary comparison of each of the alternatives. This same Sectionrefers the reader to Chapter Four where the environmental impacts ofeach alternative are discussed and analyzed in detail by impactcategory.

13d. See Response to Comment 10e.

13e. The FAA is aware that there is a disagreement between theHualapai Tribe and the NPS as to where the northern boundary of thereservation is located. The FAA notes the Tribe’s comment butreiterates that the FSEA is not the format for resolving thisdisagreement.

25

# Commentor Date Comment Response13f. The Tribe requests that language describing the expectationsof Hualapai residents and visitors be inserted in the FSEA toreflect the similar expectations of such populations with theexpectations of their counterparts in the GCNP. Specifically, thatTribal member’ expectations of natural quiet and lack of visualintrusions during recreational and hunting activities inundeveloped areas are high, but somewhat less than theirexpectations during traditional cultural activities. Theirexpectations during recreational and hunting activities can beassumed to be similar to those of backcountry visitors at GCNP.This assumption is appropriate even though hunting is prohibitedat GCNP because Hualapai hunters, like back country hikers,expect a wilderness experience and expect that game animals andother wildlife will not be disturbed by aircraft noise.

13g. Recreational visitors or tourists to the Hualapai Reservationcan be assumed to have similar expectations to visitors of similarareas of the GCNP. Thus, visitors to Grand Canyon West can beassumed to have similar expectations as visitors to the visitorcenter and lodge facilities at GCNP on the North Rim, which isless crowded than the South Rim. Hikers, river rafters andhunters can be assumed to have similar expectations to backcountry visitors at GCNP. Those expectations are discussedabove in Section 3.8.1 of this document.

13h. The term “traditional recreation activities” should be definedby listing the specific land uses within the study area that areencompassed by the term. FAA informs us that term refers toactivities listed under 14 C.F.R. Part 150 Land Use CompatibilityGuidelines. The recreational land uses covered by Part 150, suchas stadium events, are not reflective of land uses in the studyarea. Moreover, the term “traditional recreation activities” islikely to be misunderstood by the public to include NativeAmerican traditional activities or historical back countryrecreation neither of which are covered by the Part 150 land useguidelines. Since FAA advises us that power boating on LakeMead is the traditional recreational activity for which the Part150 land use guidelines were used, that activity should be

13f. See Response to Comments 10c and 10e.

13g. See Response to Comments 10c and 10e. TraditionalRecreational Activities listed under 14 CFR Part 150 include, Outdoorsports arenas and spectator sports; Outdoor music shells,amphitheaters, Nature exhibits and zoos; Amusements, parks, resorts,and camps; Golf courses, riding stables and water recreation. TheFAA appropriately cites 14 CFR 150 in the FSEA. Native Americantraditional cultural activities are described in Chapters 3 and 4 of theFSEA to the extent allowed pursuant to confidentiality considerations.

13h. See Responses to Comments 10c, 10e, and 13g. While FAAindicated that boating is an example of a traditional recreationalactivity in the study area, FAA does not agree that a list is necessary toavoid a risk of confusing the public.

26

# Commentor Date Comment Responseinserted for clarity.

13i. In the Section 106 consultation with the Hualapai Tribe, theFAA made a determination of adverse effect, not potentialadverse effect. The adverse effect determination is the basis forthe mitigation and monitoring provided for in the PA. The PAincludes a stipulation that the FAA, in cooperation with NPS, andin consultation with the Tribe, will initiate a program of financialand technical assistance to the Hualapai Tribe in monitoring theauditory, visual and other effects of the Undertaking on TCPs.

13j. The PA addresses adverse effects, not possible adverseeffects.

13k. The FAA is required by 36 CFR Part 800 to resolve theadverse effects of the Proposed Action, including the cumulativeeffects. 36 CFR §800.5(a)(1); 64 Fed. Reg. 27044, 27064 (May18, 1999). As the Tribe has always stressed in its writtencomments and consultation with the FAA, the cumulative effectsof the Proposed Action include the current level of aircraft noisewhich is the result of the past actions of FAA in establishing thecurrent routes and of non-federal entities in developing the airtour industry over the Grand Canyon.

13l. The discussion of park visitors in Section 4.7 should bedeleted as it is not an environmental justice population.

13m. The sections on Impacts to Native Americans and Impactsto Native American Subsistence Hunting and Gathering need to

13i. The Programmatic Agreement signed by the FAA, DOI, AdvisoryCouncil and Hualapai Tribe and THPO stipulates that the “FAA hasdetermined that the Undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, thecharacteristics of at least some of the TCPs that qualify them forinclusion in the National Register of Historic Places in a manner thatwould diminish their integrity.” FAA has determined that six of the 40TCPs are adversely effected by the Preferred Alternative. Thisconclusion is stated clearly in both Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of the FinalSEA. Regarding cumulative effects of the Proposed Action, seeResponse to Comment 10e above.

13j. See response to Comment 13i.

13k. See Response to Comment 10e.

13l. NPS has determined that a majority of park visitors are foreignnationals, predominantly from Asia, therefore this discussion isincluded in the Environmental Justice Section of the FSEA as impactson this minority population is considered an environmental justiceissue.

13m. See Response to Comment 10l.

27

# Commentor Date Comment Responseacknowledge that the commercial air traffic over the GrandCanyon has adverse environmental justice impacts on NativeAmericans, including the Hualapai Tribe. Although theseenvironmental justice impacts are partially mitigated by themodifications to the Proposed Action, the impacts should bedisclosed and the mitigation measures explained.

13n. The first paragraph of the Section on Native AmericanCommunities in Chapter 4 for the FSEA continues toinappropriately discuss impact in terms of unspecified“established thresholds of significant impact,” which apparentlyrefer to the inapplicable Part 150 standards, and a supposed lackof “interference with normal outdoor speech communication.”“Normal” outdoor communications and activities for traditionalHualapai include prayers and ceremonial activities at TCPs. Asdocumented in the ethnographic reports and consultations,aircraft activity interferes with these communications andactivities.

13o. The Cumulative Impacts Section of the FSEA continues toignore the cumulative impacts of the past actions (and failures toact) by the FAA, the NPS, and air tour operators that havebrought about the current high levels of commercial air touractivity in the SFRA.

13n. See Response to Comment10e.

13o. See Response to Comment 10e.

14 Hualapai Tribe,Teresa Leger andSusan G. Jordan

14a. As previously commented, the term “traditional recreationalactivities” is misleading and should be parenthetically explainedif it is used. The statement that noise thresholds for traditionalrecreational activities would not be exceeded “at any of theserepresentative locations” misleadingly suggests that the relevantactivities at all of the representative locations are traditionalrecreational activities.

14b. A considerable amount of time in the consultation during thedrafting of the Programmatic Agreement (PA) was devoted todeciding whether the impacts were potential or simply adverseeffects. The PA does not use the word potential and it should

14a. See Response to Comment 10e and 13g.

14b. See Response to Comments 10p and 13i.

28

# Commentor Date Comment Responselikewise be removed from Chapter 4 of the FSEA. Instead, theFAA found that the Undertaking had an adverse effect on “atleast some of the TCPs.” This was the basis for taking themitigation measures set forth in the PA. It is inconsistent anddangerous to state that there was only a potential for adverseaffects in the SEA when the PA and the FAA’s actions are basedon adverse effects on at least some of the TCPs. In addition, thestatement that “there is no use under Section 4(f) in these areas”needs to be clarified so that it only applies to the areas for whichno adverse effect was found.

14c. For clarification purposes, the 30 additional representativelocations provided by the Tribe during Phase II(A) of theEthnographic Study do not encompass all of the 40 TCPs andwere provided for noise modeling purposes only. A portion ofthese locations and the locations within the Reservation selectedby FAA are within the boundaries of approximately 22 of the 40TCPs identified in the Phases I and II(A) reports. There are nomodeled representative locations for the remaining 18 TCPs onthe reservation.

14d. The ethnographic reports prepared by the HualapaiDepartment of Cultural Resources indicate that at least 40 TCPsare adversely affected by the undertaking. Of the 22 TCPs forwhich there are representative locations, the FAA has determinedthat six experience a 3 dB or greater increase in noise under thePreferred Alternative.

14e. The SEA limits the comparison of the noise increase to theyear 2000 and does not include the noise increase that wouldoccur by the year 2008 as modeled. This is the foreseeable andmodeled noise increase and the FAA gives no justification formodeling it but then ignoring it. As we have previouslycommented, the relevant comparison is to the 20 dB ambientnoise level. Therefore, Table 4.18 and the text discussion shouldbe revised to include the 2008 noise data and the differences from

14c. Section 4.2 of the Final SEA was revised to respond to thiscomment (see Endnote 43).

14d. Portions of the 30 representative locations provided by theHualapai Tribe and THPO are within the boundaries of the 40 TCPsidentified by the Tribe. See Section 4.2, endnote 41 of the Final SEAfor more detail.

14e. Table 4.18 includes data for the No Action and the PreferredAction for 2000, 2003 and 2008. The Table properly compares the NoAction with the Preferred Action for each year. For a discussion of theappropriate baseline and noise thresholds, see Response to Comments10e and 10f

29

# Commentor Date Comment Responsethe ambient noise level.

14f. We have confidentiality concerns with listing activities foreach TCP (especially since the FAA has chosen to treat the widerange of activities undertaken in these sites as identical). Werecommend instead summarizing the activities and focusing onthe reasons why these activities are noise sensitive as set forth inthe ethnographic study.

14g. As we have advised you, we do not understand how FAAcan conclude in the FSEA that aircraft noise is compatible withthe traditional uses of Hualapai TCPs. As amply demonstratedby the ethnographic reports and information presented in theconsultation, the current levels of aircraft noise are notcompatible with these uses and are substantially impairing them.A finding of no constructive use is not stated outright here, butappears to be the intent of the discussion in the FSEA. For thereasons we have discussed in consultation, the Tribe does notconcur in FAA’s finding of no constructive use.

14h. For the reasons we have discussed in consultation, the Tribedoes not concur in FAA’s finding of no constructive use. Thereevaluation required by the PA is not conditioned on “significantnew information.”

14f. Activities listed for the six TCPs adversely impacted aresummarized from the Phase I and Phase IIA Ethnographic StudyReports. FAA has maintained the confidentially of these TCPs byrenumbering the TCPs and keeping their locations confidential.

14g. See Response to Comments10e and 10p.

14h. Comment noted. See Response to Comments 10e and 10p.

Public Hearing Comments (Comments 16-28), Flagstaff, AZ, August 17, 1999

15 Jeri LedbetterGrand Canyon RiverGuides

8/17/99 15a. Air tours should be subject to a 4-month curfew. 15a. See proposed Final Rule for Commercial Air Tour Limitation inthe GCNP SFRA, Section III, H6.

15b. Move air routes away from the river. 15b. Comment Noted.

15c. New routes should not be considered until the minimumgoal is met for substantial restoration of natural quiet.

15c. There are no new routes in the Preferred Alternative, whicheliminates portions of some existing routes and the route known asBlue-1. It also would modify the dogleg in the Dragon Corridor to

30

# Commentor Date Comment Responsereduce noise over the Hermit’s Rest Area, as explained in the proposedFinal Commercial Routes for GCNP.

15d. The “dogleg” seems like it’s been moved still farther west,extended into a flight-free zone. “Flight-free” should be just that.

15d. See proposed Final Commercial Routes for the GCNP.

16 Brenda HalversonPapillon Helicopters

8/17/99 16a. The NPS has manipulated key noise data in their computermodel, including: the elimination of lateral attenuation;incorrectly adjusting the speed of helicopter flight; the failure tofully account for the blocking effect of terrain between the sourceand observer of sound, and measuring aircraft sound usingvigilant observers listening actively for aircraft noise.

16a. See Appendix D for details.

16b. Air routes should direct aircraft over the most unused trailsand lookout points and not over campsites on the river.

16b. Comment noted.

16c. Papillon supports the proposed “dogleg” on the Green 2because it significantly reduces air tour traffic over the Hermit’sRest Area.

16c. See proposed Final Commercial Routes for the GCNP.

16d. Air touring is the most environmentally safe and clean wayto visit the Grand Canyon National Park.

16d. Noted.

17 Jim GullyesArizona TourismIndustry Association

8/17/99 17. The Natural Wonder of the World helps the economy withoutjeopardizing anything noticeably for our citizens.

17. Noted.

18 Dick HingsonPublic LandsCommittee of theSierra Club, UtahChapter

8/17/99 18a. The Sierra Club conditionally supports the FAA capping thenumber of flight operations at a lower level than heretofore; inthis case, 88,000 annually.

18a. See proposed Final Rule for Commercial Air Tour Limitation inthe GCNP SFRA, Section III, H8.

18b. The Sierra Club recommends ratcheting down the cap 18b. See proposed Final Rule for Commercial Air Tour Limitation in

31

# Commentor Date Comment Responseschedule, steadily decreasing say, five percent a year, untiloperations are returned to approximately 1975 levels.

the GCNP SFRA, Section III, H8.

18c. The Sierra Club supports the definition of “peak season” asMay 1 to September 30 (rule says September 15), and supportsthe ban on moving allocations from off-peak to peak within anindividual firm’s overall allocation.

18c. See proposed Final Rule for Commercial Air Tour Limitation inthe GCNP SFRA, Section III, H7.

18d. The Sierra Club recommends the closure of the DragonCorridor.

18d. See proposed Final Commercial Routes in the GCNP, pages 11.

18e. The Sierra Club recommends the closure of the Zuni-DragonConnector corridor because of the impact on the visitorexperience of forests, meadows, and trails along the North Rimand in Saddle Peak Wilderness.

18e. The Zuni-Dragon Corridor connector will be considered as anincentive corridor as part of any future rulemaking to require the use ofquiet technology and will be subject to appropriate environmentalreview as part of that next action. This SEA does not evaluatepotential impacts from use of the incentive corridor, as it is subject tofuture rulemaking to define and establish requirements for use of quiettechnology. See also proposed Final Commercial Routes in the GCNP.

18f. The “dogleg” will actually increase the aircraft noise levelsthere by a full decibel.

18f. Although noise levels will increase at Representative Location 46(The Ranch) due to the “dogleg” configuration, areas such as HermitsRest, Tower of Ra, and Point Sublime will experience a reduction innoise levels. See also proposed Final Commercial Routes in theGCNP.

18g. The Sierra Club does not support the proposed North rimincentive route, in that it continues a still noisy derogation ofprime North Rim sites such as Point Imperial, Vista Encantada,the Ken Patrick Trail, and even the North Rim Campground.

18g. See proposed Final Commercial Routes in the GCNP, page 9.

18h. The Sierra Club does not support any North Rim tour routesas proposed across the Saddle Mountain Wilderness.

18h. See proposed Final Rule for Commercial Air Tour Limitation inthe GCNP SFRA Section III, C.

32


18i. The FAA ought to correct and reevaluate its modeling datafor North Rim’s Point Imperial.

18i. See response to similar comment earlier in summary.

18j. The Sierra Club requests that a set of L90 data be publishedin the Final Supplemental EA for all sites.

18j. The FAA selected the L50 noise levels, which is the ambient soundexceeded 50 percent of the time, to represent the full range of naturalsound levels.

18k. L90 is more sensitive to the protracted low-end ambientintervals and stunning quiet experienced at Grand Canyon.

18k. See response to Comment 18j.

19 Andy CebulaVice PresidentNational AirTransportationAssociation

8/17/99 19. NATA supports the comments and conclusions reached bythe air tour industry as to the impacts of this proposal and urgethe FAA to reexamine the principles these actions are based uponto ensure that there is truly a balancing of the needs for allvisitors to the Grand Canyon.

19. See proposed Final Rule for Commercial Air Tour Limitation inthe GCNP SFRA, Section III, C.

20 P.J. Connolly 8/17/99 20. The Hualapai Nation and the Navajo Nation should beinvolved in the process.

20. See Appendix H for a list of Native American participation in thisprocess.

21 Cliff MuzzioAssistant Chief PilotPapillon

8/17/99 21. I protest the proposed rule because it does not work. 21. See Response to Comment 6a. t.

22 Jim McCarthySierra Club – GrandCanyon Chapter

8/17/99 22. This chapter supports the proposal to extend the GrandCanyon SFAR east on the Navajo Nation.

22. See proposed Final Rule for Modification of the Dimensions of theGCNP SFRA and FFZs. See discussion of extending the SFRA eastand modifying Desert View FFZ.

23 Jonathon Raye 8/17/99 23. I oppose any – any further restrictions on the air tourindustry.

23. See proposed Final Rule for Commercial Air Tour Limitation inthe GCNP SFRA, Section III, C.

24 Geoff BarnardGrand Canyon Trust

8/17/99 24. The Grand Canyon Trust supports the capping of air touroperations at 88,000.

24. See proposed Final Rule for Commercial Air Tour Limitation inthe GCNP SFRA, Section III, H8.

25 Craig SandersonSunrise Airlines

8/17/99 25. My proposal is that there’s two alternatives, where the Black2E, as it’s labeled comes form its current location where the “2”is shown, goes down towards the “Y” shape where – at Gunthers

25. See proposed Final Commercial Routes in the GCNP.

33

# Commentor Date Comment ResponseCastle at 10,000 feet. Then from there we veer off, turning south,going through the Zuni the way we do now, or going north andjoining the Black 1 and continuing on through and coming downthe Dragon Corridor. Now either way, I’m only going throughone corridor as opposed to two.

26 Dennis Bromridge 8/17/99 26. We need to cut off the top of the Zuni Corridor. 26. Comment Noted.

27 Jane Dee HullGovernorState of Arizona

8/17/99 27a. The FAA and NPS have failed in their obligation to provideincentives for quiet technology aircraft.

27a. Quiet Technology was considered in the 1996 Noise Limitationsfor Aircraft Operations in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon NationalPark Notice of Proposed Rule Making and accompanying EA. Thisrule will be considered again once the Special Flight Rules and Routerulemaking has been concluded. See proposed Final Rule forModification of the Dimensions of the GCNP SFRA and FFZs,discussion of Bright Angel FFZ; proposed Final Rule for CommercialAir Tour Limitation in the GCNP SFRA, Section III, D.

27b. I have serious reservations about the proposed rulemakingbecause it limits the access for a large group of people to thewonder of the Grand Canyon through the air, with little or noaccompanying benefit for an extremely small portion of theoverall Park visitor population.

27b. See proposed Final Rule for Commercial Air Tour Limitation inthe GCNP SFRA, pages 33-34. .

28 Brenda BurnsPresidentArizona State Senate

8/17/99 28a. I commend the efforts of the NPS and the FAA. 28. Comment Noted.

28b. I urge the FAA to please reconsider its proposed rules andexamine the success of the current regulations on air-touroperations before imposing any new restrictions.

28b. See Response to Comment 4c and Comment 6a.

Public Hearing Comments (Comments 29-34), Las Vegas, NV, August 19, 199929 David Young

Scenic Airlines CEO8/19/99 29a. Noise from aircraft is not a problem and we challenge you to

prove otherwise.29a. See Response to Comment 6a. Public Law 100-91 tasked theNPS with restoring natural quiet to the Grand Canyon. The NPSReport to Congress on the Effects of Aircraft Overflights on theNational Park System found that aviation noise is a problem,specifically in the GCNP.

34


29b. I submit to you that the 400,000 visitors a year from LasVegas to the Grand Canyon who travel by air and cause noenvironmental impact whatsoever be considered as 5,263 timesmore important.

29b. See Response to Comment 2c.

30 Bob McCuneGrand Canyon AirTour Council

8/19/99 30a. Our council continues to disagree with this position andbelieves that any effort other than a complete environmentalimpact statement will not meet compliance with the NEPA.

30b. Do not expand Desert View Flight Free Zone.

30a. See Response to Comment 2a.

30b. The Desert View FFZ is expanded to the GCNP boundary only.See Section 2.1 of the Final SEA for a discussion. See also, proposedFinal Rule for Modification of the Dimensions of the GCNP SFRA andFFZs, discussion of extending the SFRA east and modifying DesertView FFZ.

30c. “Proposed actions, the environmental impact of which islikely to be highly controversial, should be covered in all cases.”

30c. See Response to Comment 2a.

31 Art GallensonLake Mead Air

8/19/99 31a. Figure 3-1 says ambient noise level in Grand Canyon noisestudy area. Now, I thought ambient sound level was naturalquiet. Now we’re calling natural quiet noise.

31a. Ambient Noise Level is the total of all noise in the environment,other than noise from the source of interest. This term is usedinterchangeably with background noise. Therefore, ambient noise isconsidered a form of noise. Natural ambient sound level (or naturalquiet) is not noise in context, nor is it silence. It includes all thesounds of nature, but only the sounds of nature. Ambient orbackground noise level includes the natural ambient sounds plushuman-caused sounds.

31b. In the Environmental Assessment, Table 3-2, visitors ofGrand Canyon rated natural quiet as extremely important, butthat’s not true.

31b. The information provided within the table is survey informationdeveloped by the NPS and taken from the NPS Report to Congress inJuly 1995.

31c. When we do airplane studies I think we need to listen to theplane and then identify it by looking at it.

31c. The Integrated Noise Model (INM) is the FAA’s standardcomputer methodology for assessing and predicting aircraft noiseimpacts. The INM has met the standards of the Society of Automotive

35

# Commentor Date Comment ResponseEngineers (SAE), Aerospace Information Report 1845 (AIR 1845,FAA Noise.

32 Randall WalkerDirector of AviationClark CountyDepartment ofAviation

8/19/99 32a. The FAA cannot credibly use its available noise model tomake precise determination of the percentage of the GrandCanyon experiencing natural quiet under the current air touroperating scenario, let alone attempt to accurately establish thelevel to which operations must be limited to achieve the NPS’snatural quiet standard.

32a. The FAA chose to use the INM for the GCNP analysis because ofits widespread scientific acceptance, use of methodology that conformsto industry and international standards, measurement-derived noise andperformance data, the ability to calculate noise exposure over varyingterrain elevation and adaptability and reliability for assessing a varietyof situations, including GCNP noise impacts.

32b. I wonder if the FAA will allow us to go ahead and do astudy after we determine what the impacts are going to be.

32b. Comment noted.

32c. I hope the FAA does not use the same faulty scientificfoundations when it’s conducting its safety and securityregulations because if you are, heaven help us all.

32c.Comment noted

33 Edgar WalemaVice-ChairmanHualapai Tribe

8/19/99 33a. After reading the Draft, we are forced to state once againthat the FAA and the Interior Department have largelydisregarded our recommendation about evaluating theenvironmental impact. We urge these agencies to admit that theiractions will have a significant environmental, social, andeconomic impact on the Hualapai.

33a. See Response to Comments 10e, 10h, and 10k, above.

33b. The Draft wrongly applies the residential noise standard ofeight decibels to our reservation.

33b. See Response to Comment 10e.

33c. The Draft ignores the socioeconomic impact of overflightson the Hualapai Tribe.

33c. See Response to Comment 10k.

33d. The Draft wrongly concludes that none of the environmentalimpacts will be sufficient. Although the tribe is still evaluating

33d. Using standard Federal Guidelines for assessing impact on theTribe except for TCPs, the Draft EA did not identify any

36

# Commentor Date Comment Responsethe proposal, it is already clear that the proposal will have asignificant impact.

environmental areas that would be subjected to a significant impactdue to the Proposed Action. The FAA determined that there will beadverse effects to some Hualapai TCPs and some endangered species.See also, Responses to Comments 2c and 10e.

34 Loretta JacksonHualapai Tribe

8/19/99 34a. It has to be an EIS. 34a. See Response to Comment 2a.

34b. The traditional culture properties that are out there beingaffected and that some may think, you know, why or whodetermined these places to be traditional are kept in high esteem.

34b. The concerned Tribe or Nation provided information on the TCPsconsidered in this study. Because TCPs are highly confidential, thepotentially affected Tribe assisted the FAA in evaluating effects due tothe Proposed Action and reasonable alternatives.

34c. This Environmental Assessment being what it is doesn’tcarry any meat and that it should be an Environmental ImpactStatement.

34c. See Response to Comment 2a.

35 Aaron MapatisVice-ChairHualapai Tribe

1/25/00 35. Hualapai Tribe does not concur with FAA determination thatthere is no constructive use from the Undertaking to TCPs.Stated that ethnographic reports and information presented in theconsultation showed that current levels of aircraft noise are notcompatible with the traditional uses of, and are substantiallyimpairing, all 40 Hualapai TCPs. Aircraft noise is out ofcharacter with the quiet natural setting, audible air tour noisesignificantly impacts traditional cultural activities includingpraying and medicinal plant gathering. FAA’s 3dB criteria isinappropriate. FAA’s noise analysis fails to account forcumulative noise impacts.

35. See Section 4.3, which has been updated to include the results ofSection 106 consultation with the Hualapai Tribe and the additionalnoise and visual analyses. Because Hualapai TCPs in the vicinity ofthe blue direct routes already experience aircraft noise and visualintrusion from fixed wing air tour overflights, and noise exposurelevels remain below urban noise levels under the Preferred Alternative,and based upon the immediate and long term mitigation measuresincluded in the NHPA Section 106 PA, FAA has concluded that thePreferred Alternative does not result in constructive use. There wouldbe adverse noise impacts on six of the 40 TCPs identified by theHualapai Tribe and THPO during Section 106 consultation howeverthese were not significant and do not constitute a constructive use.Alternatively, FAA has determined that there is no feasible andprudent alternative and that the Preferred Alternative includes allpossible planning to minimize the harm. For more detail, seeResponse to Comment 10p. In the SEA the FAA properly used notambient noise levels or the NPS noise thresholds for natural quiet, butthe existing project baseline to compare environmental consequencesof the Preferred Alternative and Alternatives 3 and 4. Use of thisbaseline did not preclude the FAA from properly considering effects of

37

# Commentor Date Comment Responsepast actions and other cumulative noise impacts on Hualapai TCPs.

36 Southwest Safaris 10/7/99 36a. FAA claims to be reducing aircraft sound over the canyonsof the Little Colorado River for two reasons, “foreign noisespilling over into the Park from aircraft flying along the canyonsof the Little Colorado River and protecting Native Americansfrom noise impacts. Both justifications are flawed. A visitorstanding at Desert View lookout simply can not hear a planeflying as far away as the Little Colorado River. The distance istoo great. Furthermore, the prevailing wind is from the west.Not only does the sound of the ever-present breeze, blowingthrough the pines and across the cliffs as Desert View, muffleany aircraft noise generated fifteen miles away, but also the windcarries the sounds of aircraft to the east [outside the park]. In thesecond place, no Indians live in the bottom of the canyons of theLittle Colorado River, or even venture down inside the dangerouscanyons. FAA is trying to protect Native Americans fromaircraft noise even though the Indians “adversely affected” arenot themselves physically impacted, but rather culturallyannoyed. The FAA has no way of measuring degrees of “culturalannoyance” or of providing that it even exists. The issue ofactual sound has become one of “theoretical mystical intrusion,”which has no regulatory relevance to the FAA’s mission.

36b. The FAA is holding air tour operators to a much higherstandard than the NPS is holding commercial rafting companies.The raft companies are allowed a greater physical presence in theconfluence of the Big and Little Colorado Rivers withoutobjection. The double standard for one group of sightseersversus another reveals the hypocrisy of the FAA’s professeddesire to protect the canyons of the Little Colorado from “noisedamage.”

36c. Congress has not empowered the FAA to set aside special

36a. Following comments received on the NPRM, the proposedeastern boundary of the Desert View FFZ has been moved westward tothe eastern boundary of the GCNP (see Final SEA, Section 1.4). TheLittle Colorado River confluence is a very popular attraction for theapproximately 16,000 river runners permitted on the Colorado River,plus a number of backpackers in that general area and across the riverin the Nankoweap area. The area also contains numerous cultural sitesprotected under Section106 and other laws. See also Proposed FinalRule Modification of the Dimensions of the GCNP SFRA and FFZs,discussion on Extending the SFRA East and Modifying Desert ViewFFZ.

36b. This comparison is inappropriate. Raft companies operate underconcession contracts with GCNP. These contracts strictly limit thenumber and timing of launches available for each company as well asthe maximum number of passengers per launch. The raft companiesconform to additional regulations not applicable to air tour operators,including restrictions on where boats are permitted to land and wherepeople are permitted to camp and even walk in the vicinity of the LittleColorado River. The noise from motorized rafts is limited to a smallarea near the confluence, and three months of each year motorboats atnot permitted at all on the river. See Proposed Final Rule CommercialAir tour Limitations in the GCNP SFRA, Section III.G.

36c. In exercising its authority to manage the navigable airspace FAA

38

# Commentor Date Comment Responseuse, restricted, or prohibited airspace in order to protectunidentified “Traditional Cultural Properties.” The National ParkOverflights Act of 1987 does not even mention TCPs.

36d. Nowhere have the courts upheld that aircraft soundsanywhere impinge upon freedom of worship. Accordingly, theFAA has no authority from Congress to regulate airspace so toprovide for the spiritual protection of Native Americans, or anyother American, for that matte, especially as pertains tounidentified sites.

36e. The NPS’s definition of “natural quiet” is arbitrary. TheNPS interprets Pub. L. 100-91 to mean that total quiet must berestored to at least 50% of the Park for at lest 75% of the day.The level of “natural quiet” the FAA is trying to enforce is anoise level that is substantially below the ambient sound of wind,animals, and other naturally occurring noise.

36f. The concept of “substantial restoration of natural quiet” ismeaningless where there is no one on the ground to perceive thechange. The point of Pub. L. 10-91 was to eliminate aircraftnoise where it is bothersome to people in the Park.

36g. The concept of quiet technology is premature, biased, andlargely irrelevant. Standards simply do not exist. Nor are theylikely to in the near future.

is obligated to comply with statutes and Executive Orders governingcultural resources (see FSEA Section4.2 and 4.3 for further discussionand analysis). The SFRA is not special use, restricted or prohibitedairspace.

36d. See Section4.2 and response to 36c above.

36e. “Natural quiet” is the “ambient sound of wind, animals, and othernaturally occurring noise.” Natural quiet does not equate to “totalquiet” as this comment asserts. See FSEA at Section1.2 and 4.1 fordiscussion of natural quiet and other terms used in analyzing noise.

36f. The definition of substantial restoration of natural quiet wasdetermined to be “reasonable” in the U.S. Court of Appeals case,Grand Canyon Air Tour Coalition v. Federal Aviation Administration,154 F.3d 455 (D.C Cir. 1998). Natural quiet is one of the resourcesthat GCNP is mandated to preserve in an unimpaired condition.Impacts upon resources and values depend upon impacts to theresources and values, not whether people are “bothered” or not.“Bother” is a possible factor in assessing impacts upon people’sopportunities to experience and appreciate resources and values. Seethe Proposed Final Rule Commercial Air Tour Limitations in theGCNP, Section III.C.

36g. See response to Comment 27a, and the Proposed Final RuleCommercial Air Tour Limitations in the GCNP, Section III.D.

39


36h. The FAA has implied in the NPRM that it is inappropriatefor aircraft to fly over several “Traditional Cultural Properties”regardless of the noise level of the aircraft. So the FAA has, onceagain, artfully changed the argument against air tour planesflying over the Grand Canyon. Ten years ago, the issue wassafety. Now it is noise. Next it will be the mere visual presenceof aircraft over “sacred national land.” Ultimately the issue willbecome privacy for those on the ground.

36i. SFAR 50-2 has already achieved “substantial restoration ofnatural quiet” in the Grand Canyon at large, irrespective of thenoise generated on the east side of the Park. The goal of Pub. L.100-91 has already been accomplished.

36h. See Response to Comment 36c, above. See also SEA Section 4.2and 4.3.

36i. Acoustic modeling indicates that, for 1998, 32.0% of GCNP hadachieved substantial restoration of natural quiet on an average annualday (Final SEA, Table 4.11, 1998 No Action). Modeling under theconditions described in the Preferred Alternative shows 43.6%substantial restoration achieved for an average annual day (Final SEA,Table 4.11, 1998 Alternative 2).

37 EnvironmentalCoalition

9/7/99 37a. NPS defined natural quiet as “the absence of man-madesounds” (FAA 1996b.60308). The term “natural quiet” is definedand has been defined for a significant time. The definition makescommon sense and is scientifically quantifiable. It is noted thatnatural quiet is not necessarily the absence of sound; it is theabsence of unnatural sound. Because GCNP is naturally veryquiet, natural quiet is a valuable resource worthy of legalprotection.

37b.The NPS defined substantial restoration of natural quiet in itsreport to Congress (NPS1995, 182). “Substantial restorationrequires that 50% or more of the park achieve ‘natural quiet’ (i.e.,no aircraft audible) for 75-100 percent of the day.” (The phrase“no aircraft audible” is from the original.) The NPS uses theterm “day,” as opposed to night, to mean twelve hour daylightperiod, specifically, 7:00a.m. to 7:00p.m. Under this definition,substantial restoration could exist with 50 percent of the parknaturally quiet only3/4 of the day; the other 50 percent of thepark could completely lack natural quiet and could be pervadedceaselessly by very high noise levels throughout the entire day.

37a. Comment noted.

37b. The interpretation of “day” and “no aircraft audible” are correct,and are what was intended in the NPS definition. The NPS definitionin the 1995 Report to Congress only specifies what must occur in the50% or more of the park where natural quiet should be restored at least75% of the day; it does not specify what should occur in the rest of thepark. The definition also does not specify what should occur at night.This comment implies that his lack of specificity should be addressed.The suggestion will be considered as part of the initial scoping for theComprehensive Noise Management Plan. See Natural Park Service,U.S. Department of Interior, Report on the Effect of AircraftOverflights on the National Park System (1995).

40


37c. The FAA definition of substantial restoration of naturalquiet is the same as the NPS definition with one importantdifference. The FAA uses the phrase “tour aircraft” where theNPS uses the word “aircraft” (FAA 1996a, 4.2). Thus, the FAAintends to ignore the effects of military, commercial aviation andgeneral aviation aircraft. Review of the Overflights Act revealsno authority to exempt certain aircraft types from the noisecalculations.

37d. In this case, restoration should be to a natural condition orto a condition that prevailed before Congress dictated action.Congress formally addressed aircraft noise at GCNP in the GrandCanon National Park enlargement Act, which was enacted on 3January 1975. The Enlargement Act calls for “appropriate actionto protect the park and visitors” from “a significant adverse effecton the natural quiet and experience of the park.” Thus,restoration should be at least to the levels of 1975.

37c. In the 1994 Report to congress, the NPS identified air touraircraft as a significant contributor of aircraft noise in GCNP. (SeeNational Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Report on theEffect of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park System (1995).Noise generated by air tour aircraft conducting commercial air touroperations in GCNP present a specific type of problem because theytend to operate repeatedly at low altitudes over the same routes. It isrecognized that other aircraft operate in the vicinity of the GCNP. Thenoise generated by these other aircraft has not been included in thenoise models used to obtain the estimates contained in the analysisbecause the FAA has determined that the amount of noise produced bythese aircraft is minimal compared to that of commercial air touraircraft. (GA traffic accounts for about 3 percent of all aircraft in theGCNP according to the Las Vegas FSDO.) The FAA does not believethat this amount of noise will affect the accuracy of its estimates. TheFAA will monitor future operations in the Park to determine the actuallevel of natural quiet that is restored. In addition, in his Memorandumfor the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, April 22, 1996,President Clinton called for the issuance of proposed regulations “toplace appropriate limits on sightseeing aircraft over the Grand CanyonNational Park to reduce the noise immediately and make furthersubstantial progress toward restoration of natural quiet, as defined bythe Secretary of the Interior, while maintaining aviation safety inaccordance with the Overflights Act (Pub. L. 100-91).” See also theCommercial Air Tour Limitation in the GCNP SFRA RegulatoryEvaluation.

37d. Pub. L. 100-91 does not set a baseline or mandate restoration to1975 levels. The reporting requirements for commercial air touroperators will enable FAA and NPS to collect the necessary data todetermine the next steps required to achieve substantial restoration ofnatural quiet.

41


37e. The definition of “natural quiet” used by the NPS isappropriate; however, the current definition of “substantialrestoration” is flawed. Half the park lacking natural quiet 25percent of the day and the other half of the park totally withoutnatural quiet is not substantial restoration. A more appropriatedefinition would require natural quiet throughout the day in 50percent of the park, as a minimum. Natural quiet for at least 80percent of the day in the other half of the park would beappropriate. This would result in a time-area proportion of 90percent natural quiet. The essence of the word substantial iscertainly closer to 90 percent than it is to the 37.5 percent (50percent of the area x ¾ of the time, +50 percent of the area x zerotime).

37f. The agencies’ proposed action does not represent animprovement. It instead represents an acknowledgement that –not only have the agencies failed to implement the statutorymandate – but they have permitted conditions at the Park toworsen rather than to improve since the Overflights Act wasimplemented. This is nothing short of a deplorable flouting ofcongressional intent. Moreover, the proposed actions would not,by the agencies’ admission, meet the requirement, and theywould not constitute reasonable progress towards therequirement.

37g. The SEA also indicates that 41 percent of the GCNP wouldbe substantially restored to natural quiet if the preferredalternative were implemented. A closer review indicates that the

37e. A similar argument was presented in Grand Canyon Air TourCoalition v. Federal Aviation Administration, 154 F.3d 455 (D.C Cir.1998. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuitfound that the term “substantial restoration of natural quiet” is “…morethan sufficiently elastic to support the agency’s definition asreasonable” (1998 WL 558805, *16 (D.C.Cir., p.14). See also,National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Report on theEffect of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park System (1995);Response to comment 37b above.

37f. Federal agencies have discretion to address problems using aphased approach. The proposed action is a step in a process to achievesubstantial restoration of natural quiet. In all the steps, FAA and NPSare using the best available data and methods to estimate the effects ofproposed measures on the restoration of natural quiet in the park aswell as impacts on adjacent lands and the air tour industry. The routesand corridors established subsequent to Pub. L. 100-91 for air tourtraffic have provided both safety and acoustic improvements to thepark. Those improvements however, have diminished over time due tothe growth in the number of air tour flights; this growth is beingaddressed by this action. The proposed final Rule Commercial AirTour Limitation limits operations to approximately 90,000 a year forall except air tour operators under contract with the Hualapai Tribe.FAA and NPS are taking a reasoned approach to assess the effects ofsteps in the process, as they are taken and adjusting as necessary withsubsequent steps. The agencies seek to ensure that any measures takenachieve sufficient gains in restoration of natural quiet commensuratewith any impacts they might impose on the air tour industry or others.

37g. Pub. L. 100-91 and the NPS definition of substantial restorationdid not specify the time period of interest, other that “day”. Effects ofdifferent time periods (i.e., annual average, shoulder season, summer

42

# Commentor Date Comment Responsenumber during the high visitor period (summer day) would be 31percent of the park area (Table F2, page F4). Additionally, on apeak day the number would drop further to 19 percent. If theimpact of commercial jets and general aviation aircraft ere takeninto account, which they should be, the percent of the park areameeting the requirement would be even lower.

37h. Each visitor experiences the park on the day he or she isthere. If there are few flights on a day six months after a visitorleaves, it provides no noise relief for the visitor. Every parkvisitor should have the opportunity to experience substantialrestoration of natural quiet, regardless of what day they visit thepark.

37i. The plain language of the definition of substantialrestoration of natural quiet requires that the substantialrestoration test be met every day, regardless of the season.Averaging “substantial restoration” over the course of a year toallow higher noise levels during the summer is clearly contrary tothe intent of the Overflights Act, which meant that substantialrestoration of natural quiet occur year round, not simply at certainseasons. The intent was not just to substantially restore naturalquiet to some arbitrary definition; it was to protect theopportunity for all park visitors to experience natural quiet.

37j. Noise modeling must reflect the noise on a peak summerday, not on some “average” or “annual” day. The North Rim isclosed by snow from October to May, and most visitors areunable to visit the park in the off season. Additionally, an“average” or “annual” day is contrary to the NPS definition ofsubstantial restoration. The definition states that the park would“achieve ‘natural quiet’ (i.e., no air craft audible) for 75-100percent of the day.” It says “75-100 percent of the day.” It doesnot say “on average, 75-100 percent of the day.”

season, peak day) were evaluated in the SEA (see Final SEA,Appendix F). See also the response to comment 37b, 37c and theProposed final Rule Commercial Air Tour Limitation in the GCNPSFRA Regulatory Evaluation.

37h. There are opportunities for visitors to experience almost noaircraft noise even during the summer season.

37i. See response to comment 37b, 37e, and 37g.

37j. See response to comment 2b and 37g.

43

# Commentor Date Comment Response37k. The ambient (natural background) sound level must bemeasured by the L90 method, not L50. As the NPS has stated,“The quiet to be preserved is the lower end of the ambient soundlevel range that occurs regularly between wind gusts, animalsounds, etc., not just the average sound level.” (NPS 1995, Sec.3.4)

37l. The standard for noise modeling must be audibility, not anartificial noticeability level. Natural quiet is defined by NPS andFAA as “no aircraft audible,” not “no aircraft noticeable.” TheNPS policy definition of substantial restoration is based onaudibility. Therefore, use of an arbitrary and unscientificnoticeability standard in the models is tantamount to a deliberatefalsification of data. While there might be some justification fornoticeability standard in certain highly developed portions of thevillage area, there is no justification in the Marble Canyon andSanup Plateau area because they are undeveloped.

37m. Monitoring and modeling must incorporate all types ofaircraft, including commercial jets and general aviation. Becausenon-tour aircraft fly directly over the so-called “flight-freezones,” they are often much closer and louder than air tours, andtherefore have a greater noise impact. Monitoring must includethe evening hours, when jet traffic often peaks. As NPSmonitoring has shown jets contribute a significant fraction of thepark noise.

37n. Noise maps and models should show the cumulative hoursof aircraft noise that a location would experience on a peaksummer day. “Percent of time audible” is ambiguous andmisleading. For example, 2.8 hours of air tour noise computedfor a 12 hour day would be represented as “23% TA” but as“28% TA” if computed for a 10 hour day, while the same 2.8hours of et noise spread over a 24hour period would be shown asonly “12% TA”. To be meaningful to a reader, the maps shouldshow the range of values calculated by the model, with four or

37k. See responses to comment 18j.

37l. See the Federal Register notices related to the NPS change innoise evaluation methodology (64 FR 3969, January 26, 1999; and 64FR 38006, July 14, 1999).

37m. See response to 37b and 37c above. See also the Proposed FinalRule Commercial Air Tour Limitation in the GCNP SFRA RegulatoryEvaluation.

37n. Noise modeling for this environmental analysis is based on a 12-hour computational day. Cumulative time can be easily derived fromPercent Time Audible (e.g., 3 hours of aircraft noise computed on a12-hour day would equal 25% TA. The tables and figures in the SEAprovide adequate information.

44

# Commentor Date Comment Responsefive well-chosen choropleths (categories) of cumulative time-audible. The following categories would correlate well with theresponse given in the visitor surveys: (a) Natural quiet (noaircraft audible); (b) 1 to 15 minutes of aircraft noise per day; (c)15 minutes to 3 hours of aircraft noise per day; (d) more than 3hours of aircraft noise per day.

37o. We support the NPS plan to hire a consultant to verify thenoise model results.

37p. Monitoring sites should include panoramic location on theopen “floor” of the outer Canyon, which are exposed to soundsfrom all directions. These plateaus make up most of theCanyon’s area, contain most of the trail mileage, and generallyhave the lowest ambient sound levels. They are therefore theareas where backcountry visitors are most likely to seek naturalquiet. The 23 monitoring sites used in the past are notrepresentative of the park soundscape, since nearly all were in theconfined, inner gorge near the river or at developed rim pointshaving vehicle and wind noise.

37o. Comment noted.

37p. Monitoring sites have included a wide variety of environments,both within the canyon and on the rims, close o and far from flightcorridors, etc. The data indicate that there are a number of “parksoundscapes” and care is being taken to ensure the monitoring sites arerepresentative of large areas. See Section4.1.1 Ambient Sound Levelsof the Final SEA. The noise analysis included 72 noise sensitivelocations, which adequately represent the range of localitycharacteristics (terrain, elevation, activity, etc.), found in the studyarea.

38 Gary W. Todd, PE 9/01/99 38a. Propose adjustments to the northern border of the SFRA tomatch the northern border of the GCNP. Neither the 1996 northe 1999 GCNP SFRA environmental assessment have shown aneed to include areas north of this line [the northern border of theGCNP] in the GCNP SFRA. All references to aircraft noise andother environmental issues clearly indicate the area North of thisline does not need the “restoring natural quiet” protection offeredby the GCNP SFRA per Pub.L.100-91.

38b. Propose elimination of the proposed expansion to thewestern border of the GCNPSFRA in the vicinity of GrandCanyon West airport. The proposed extension of the westernborder of the GCNP SFRA will have no effect on improving thenatural quiet within the GCNP. The proposed area was notincluded in the 1996 GCNP SFRA rule and the 1999 GCNP

38a. The northern boundary of the SFRA was established in 1986 aspart of SFAR 50-2. It was established north of GCNP to create an areaof controlled airspace in which VFR air tour aircraft could safelynavigate the GCNP air routes, portions of which lie outside the park.FAA expanded the Toroweap/Shinumo FFZ to include the entire areaof the park consistent with Pub. L. 100-91 (see 61 FR 69302).

38b. The GCNP SFRA was expanded to the west in the vicinity of theGrand Canyon West airport as part of the December 31, 1996 SpecialFlight rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park, Section93.301 (see FR 69302). The extension of the SFRA was necessary tocorrect an inadvertent omission of Grand Wash Cliffs, which are partof the GCNP, and to aid in the substantial restoration of natural quiet at

45

# Commentor Date Comment ResponseSFRA environmental assessment clearly indicates this area doesnot have a noise issue. Including this area solely because it lieswithin the GCNP does not meet the mandate of Pub. L. 100-91.The FAA and the NPS need to prove this area is “endangered”due to encroachment of noise. Their environmental assessmentstud does just the opposite, it proves there is no noise issue,therefore this area does not need the protection offered by theGCNP SFRA.

GCNP as mandated by Pub. L. 100-91. Additionally, the FAA wantedpositive control of the entire airspace over the GCNP in order to insurethe safe navigation of commercial air tour aircraft. Therefore, thisportion of the Park had to be included in the SFRA boundary. Theexpansion was reflected in the 1996 FEA.

39 Robert Witzeman,M.D., MaricopaChapter of theNational AudubonSociety

8/04/99 39a. The FAA proposal falls short of even the weak standard forrestoration of the natural quiet. The agency says that only 41%(improved from 32%) of the Park will be quiet 75% of the day.All the rest of the Park has aircraft noise up to 100% of the day!This does not even meet the weak Park Service standard of 50-%of the Park with aircraft noise “only” 25% of the day (with nonoise limits in the other 50% of the park). Substantial restorationof natural quiet should mean most of the Park most of the time,for example 75% of the Park, 100% of the time.

39b. The Grand Canyon is one of the naturally quietest places onEarth. It is a place where visitors expect to get in touch withnature and enjoy the “natural quiet”, including the sound of thewind, trickling streams, or the call of the condor. They shouldnot have to listen to aircraft up to every three minutes as occursin many locations. Quiet deserves as much protection as otherpark resources.

39a. See response to comment 37e. See also National Park Service,U.S. Department of Interior, Report on the Effect of AircraftOverflights on the National Park system (1995).

39b. See Response to comment 37h.

40 Kenneth A. Walters 9/03/99 40a. The number of air tours must be reduced to the numberpresent in 1977 - when air tour noise was not a problem.

40b. The FAA proposal to amend the special operating rules forair tour flights in the Grand Canyon is a total flouting of the law.Substantially restoring natural quiet requires that at least 94% ofthe Park be entirely noise free 100% of the time and the other 6%must be noise free 75% of the time. Ninety four percent ofGrand Canyon National Park is proposed wilderness. It mustsound like wilderness. That is, no aircraft noise.

40a. See proposed Final Rule for Commercial Air Tour Limitation inthe GCNP SFRA, Section III.H.8. See also response to comment 37d.

40b. Comment noted. See also response to 37e.

46


41 Andrea Leigh, PublicLands Com. AngelesChapter of the SierraClub

9/01/99 41a. “Substantial restoration of natural quiet” is not being met.Over 94% of Grand Canyon National Park is proposedwilderness. The FAA claims that 41% of the Park will be quiet75% of the day. This is unacceptable. This does not even meetthe weak NPS standard of 50% of the Park with aircraft noise25% of the day. On a peak summer day, the noise level riseswhere 19% of the Park is “substantially restored”. This meansthat an incredible 81% of the park would have audible air noise.This does not take into account unmeasured noise from jets andother aircraft extending into the night.

41b. It should be the long term goal of the NPS and FAA toreduce the number of air tour operations to the level prevailed in1975. At the very least, the number of flights should be rolledback to the 1987 level to meet the directive of Congress in theNational Parks Overflights Act.

41c. The L90 rather than the L50 methodology should be used todetermine natural ambient levels. L90 is more sensitive to thenatural conditions experienced at Grand Canyon and is, therefore,preferred the NPS as is stated in the 1994 report to Congress.

41a. See response to comments 37c and 37e., and the Proposed FinalRule Commercial Air Tour Limitation in the GCNP SFRA RegulatoryEvaluation.

41b. See Proposed Final Rule Commercial Air Tour Limitation in theGCNP SFRA, Section III. H.8. See also response to comment 37d.

41c. See response to comment 18j.

42 Eiemer A. Katinszky 8/31/99 42. Those who oppose commercial flight tours in the GCNPunder the aegis of Pub. L. 100-91 are simply chasing the rainbowand reveal their ignorance or total lack of practical sense. If onedeclares natural quiet as a noise level of twenty (20) dB, than thatmeans banning every live human being from the park, becausethe presence of one means a noise level of twenty-seven (27) dB.The legislative process occasionally creates laws that are at bestimpractical and our representatives are perfectly capable to eitheramend or abolish them.

42. Comment noted.

43 Rob Elliott, PresidentArizona Raft

9/03/99 43a. As many other have asserted, 50% of Grand CanyonNational Park naturally quiet 75 to 100% of the day is an

43a. See response to comment 37b and 37e.

47

# Commentor Date Comment ResponseAdv.(AzRA) inadequate standard. This means that the relatively quiet half of

the park can experience aircraft noise one minute in every four,and the remainder of the park could experience aircraft noisevirtually all day long, non-stop. If substantial restoration ofnatural quiet is averaged over longer time periods, say a month ora year, then the standard is further flawed, especially for thevisitor who comes to the Canyon hitting only the noisier days.This standard simply fails even to approximate the substantialrestoration of natural quiet as mandated by the National ParksOverflights Act of 1987.

43b. FAA claims that they will achieve natural quiet 42% of thetime but that is averaged over an unacceptably long period oftime. Congress intended that a visitor to the Grand Canyonshould be able to experience a substantial restoration of naturalquiet regardless of which day(s) the visitor decides to visit theark. Each visitor should have the opportunity to experiencenatural quiet regardless of the day, the month, or the season he orshe elects to visit.

43c. The L90 rather than the L50 methodology should be used todetermine natural ambient levels of sound.

43b. See responses to comments 37g and 37h.

43c. See response to comments 18j.

44 Steven SzymanskiPlanet Bluegrass

9/08/99 44a. The FAA proposal falls short of even their weak standardfor substantial restoration of natural quiet. The agency says thatduring the tourist season, only 31 percent of the park will be quiet¾ of the day. The rest of the park could have aircraft noise allday. This is totally unacceptable.

44b. The Grand Canyon is one of the naturally quietest places onEarth. It is a place where visitors expect to get in touch withnature and enjoy peace and quiet. They expect to hear the soundsof the wind, trickling streams, or the call of native birds. Theyshould not have to listen to aircraft while listening to naturalsounds.

44a. See response 37b, 37c, 37e and 37g. See also the Proposed FinalRule Commercial Air Tour Limitation in the GCNP SFRA RegulatoryEvaluation.

44b. Comment noted. See also response to comment 37h.

48

# Commentor Date Comment Response45 Jim Pratt 8/29/99 45a. The FAA and NPS have made no effort to determine the

effect, if any, general aviation is having on the GCNP and itsneighbors. The noise impact from commercial air tours is theonly aviation activity addressed in the study.

45b. The FAA and the NPS have failed to present any evidencethat indicated the need to restrict general aviation aircraft fromflying in the vicinity of or over GCNP. There is no evidence thatgeneral aviation has contributed to the loss of natural quiet withinthe GCNP.

45a. See response to comment 37c. See also the Final RuleCommercial Air Tour Limitation in the GCNP SFRA RegulatoryEvaluation.

45b. The Tuckup and Fossil Canyon Corridors have been open togeneral aviation. FAA did not clarify this in the chart thataccompanied the June 1999 Notice of Proposed Commercial Air TourRoutes. See proposed Airspace Modification Final Rule, Modificationof Dimensions of GCNP SFRA and FFZs, AOPA comment/petition forreconsideration.

46 R. Glen Woods andJohn R. EricksonWoods and EricksonCounsel for GrandCanyon Airlines

9/07/99 46a. The FAA has failed to distinguish between noise created byair tours and other flights. The FAA admits there is noise fromother flights in the SFRA exists but has not bothered to measurethat noise because it “believes the amount of noise produced bythese aircraft is very small compared to that of commercial airtour aircraft.” This unsupported conclusion is typical of thesloppy scientific method applied by the FAA.

46b. The FAA has ignored the impact that Park Service flightsand other commercial flights occurring within the flight-freezones have on park visitors. The proposed rule does not addresslimiting any flights other than air tours. This leads to a perversesituation whereby the Park Service could conduct annoyingflights in FFZs (where visitors are more likely to be encountered)and then use this annoyance to justify further limitations on airtours that did not cause the annoyance.

46a. See response to comment 37c. See also the Commercial Air TourLimitation in the GCNP SFRA Regulatory Evaluation.

46b. The NPS definition of substantial restoration was not based uponannoyance. However, NPS flights are already subject to regulation byNPS to reduce impacts. NPS flights are subject to new proposedreporting requirements. See also the Final Rule Commercial Air TourLimitation in the GCNP SFRA Regulatory Evaluation.

47 Pappilon GrandCanyon HelicoptersElling Halvorson

9/07/99 47a. There are areas sacred to every tribe, race, and religion allover this nation. It is inconceivable that no aircraft shouldtransgress airspace over cultural or religious sites. This is notonly a dangerous precedent but unfounded as al legalrequirement. There has furthermore been precedence set whereflight routes extend over alleged so-called Native Americancultural and religious sites over the protest.

47a. See response to comments 8g, 36c and 36d.

49


47b. The new proposed NPS plan provides for a double standardof sound level in the Grand Canyon. For the eastern end of theCanyon it is proposed that the measure of audibility be 8 decibelsbelow ambient sound. For reason that have been stated over andover again, this is not only an over-ambitious target but it isunachievable and therefore ludicrous. The target is significantlyless than the human ability to hear.

47c. The Resource Management Guideline NPS-77, Chapter 2,“Protection of Aesthetic Values”, includes natural quiet as one ofthe “valued resources” of national parks. The Guideline does notdefine natural quiet as 3, 5, or in this case 8 decibels belownatural ambient. Public Law 100-91 emphasizes that thereduction in sound should be for the visitors benefit not somearbitrary value many times below which the human ear can hearor perceive. Visitor complaints at GCNP are greatly reducedsince the implementation of SFAR 50-2.

47d. Past studies have used the threshold of noticeability as“background plus 3 dba” as a criterion of natural quiet. The 1996FAA study used ambient sound level plus 3 dba as its measure ofnatural quiet. The 1998 GCATA vs. FAA court decision againreinforced this definition, explicitly citing background noise plus3 dba as the threshold for natural quiet. NPS has requested alevel of 8 dba below background (11 dba below the threshold ofnoticeability) as their criteria for natural quiet. This isinconsistent and unacceptable.

There should be one standard of sound level for the entire GCNP.The average onset and offset of detectability by trained observerswith good hearing in the Grand Canyon was slightly below 30decibels. In consideration of this, a decibel level of 29 is in fact arealistic level of noticeability. Any thing established below thatamount is punitive in nature, arbitrary and capricious by design.

47b. See responses to comment 12b. See also the NPS FederalRegister Notices related to the change in noise evaluation methodology(64 FR 3969, January 26, 1999; and 64 FR 38006, July 14, 1999.

47c. See response to comment 12b and the NPS Notices related to thechange in noise evaluation methodology (64 FR 3969, January 26,1999; and 64 FR 38006, July 14, 1999.

47d. See response to comment 12b and the NPS Notices related to thechange in noise evaluation methodology (64 FR 3969, January 26,1999; and 64 FR 38006, July 14, 1999.

50

# Commentor Date Comment Response48 Henry Schneiker 9/01/99 48a. People have talked about restoring the “Natural Quiet”. I

think the concept of natural quiet is a very poor concept andshould be discarded. From the perspective of a person out in thewilderness, as long as society sounds are reduced to a fraction ofthe natural sounds, they go unnoticed and are no longerbothersome.

48b.The reduction in society sounds can come in two ways.First, reducing the time of exposure, including the total numberof exposure. Second, reducing the intensity of the exposure. Ifwe assume that the aircraft are going to stay, this leads us to theconclusion that the aircraft should be quieter and fly at sufficientdistance from people so as to not generate excessive noise.

48c. The Park Service should be included as one of thecommercial operators and they should live within whateverstructure the commercial operations live. The main reason forthis is that a tourist makes no distinction between Park Serviceand Commercial aircraft—they are equally annoying.

48a. Comment noted.

48b. Comment noted.

48c. Comment Noted. See response to comment 46b and theProposed Final Rule Commercial Air Tour Limitation in the GCNPSFRA Regulatory Evaluation.

49 Roy ResavagePresident HelicopterAssociation Int’l

9/07/99 49a. It is incomprehensible that the FAA would move forwardwith the proposed new, harsh restriction of GCNP air tours untilthe forthcoming research work is complete [Noise ModelValidation].

49b. HAI strongly urges NPS and FAA to undertake a rigorous,peer-reviewed, publicly-observed study of ambient sound levels,particularly in the areas of GCNP designated as “Zone Two” byNPS in its notice of July 14, 1999, “Change in Noise EvaluationMethodology for Air tour Operations Over Grand CanyonNational Park,” 64 Fed. Reg. 38006 (July 14, 1999); see also 64Fed. Reg. 3969 (January 26, 1999), before adopting these or anyother further restrictions on aircraft overflight at GCNP.

49c. The National Parks Overflight Act directed NPS to

49a. See response to comments 2b, 8d, and 8e.

49b. Comment noted. See also responses to comments 8d and 8e.

49c. See response to comment 37c. See also the Proposed Final Rule

51

# Commentor Date Comment Response“distinguish between the impacts caused by sightseeing aircraft,military aircraft, commercial aviation, general aviation and otherforms of aircraft which affect” the Park. To date, NPS has failedto report this information.

49d. Human activity on the ground has characteristics that mayinfluence acceptable overflight noise thresholds, and the presenceor absence of such activity should be taken into account.

49e. In areas of GCNP where NPS asserts the “ambient level” tobe 20 dB, a proposed “noise threshold” of 8 dB below ambientwould bar overflying aircraft if the overflight resulted in 12 dBon the ground. This is a sound level below the threshold ofaverage human perception, much less human “noticeability.”

49f. A proper balance was struck in SFAR 50-2. Natural quietwas restored under SFAR 50-2. The current proposals are notnecessary, not appropriate, and not acceptable.

Commercial Air tour Limitation in the GCNP SFRA Regulatoryevaluation and the NPS Report to Congress, Chapter 2 (1995).

49d. See National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Reporton Effect of aircraft Overflights on the National Park System (1995).

49e. See response to comment 12b and the NPS Notices related to thechange in noise evaluation methodology (64 FR 3969, January 26,1999; and 64 FR 38006, July 14, 1999.

49f. See response to comment 4c.

50 Kenton D. JonesAttorney, WindrockAviation, L.L.C. andAir Grand CanyonInc.

9/07/99 50a. The “Standard” for determining “Substantial Restoration ofNatural Quiet” remain so subjective that it is incapable of review.The issue of monitoring and evaluating “substantial restoration”should be given over to a neutral, non-governmental entity, withsubstantial expertise in the area of acoustics, whosedeterminations as to whether the mandates of PL 100-91 hadbeen reached would be binding upon both the government andthe tour operators.

50a. Comment Noted. As to the definition of substantial restoration,see Response to comment 37b and 37e.

51 Arnie GrunerPapillon

9/07/99 51. Natural quiet has already been achieved by SFAR 50-2beyond the NPS standards. Furthermore, even the currentconditions could be improved upon with quiet aircraft incentivesto where 70-80% or more of the Park could have natural quiet 75to 100% of the time.

51a. See response to comment 4c.

APPENDIX H

CONSULTATION

H-1

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA)NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION

as of January 2000

The following listing is a record of consultation relating to the Native American Tribes and/orNations having traditional cultural ties to the Grand Canyon. These consultations were conductedin accordance the DOT Order 5301.1, “Department of Transportation Programs, Policies, andProcedures Affecting American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Tribes” implementing ExecutiveOrder 13084, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, the National Historic Preservation Act, Section106 requirements and related laws, regulations, executive and departmental orders.

These consultations addressed the proposed modifications to the airspace, commercial air tourroutes, and procedures utilized in Special Federal Aviation Regulation Number 50-2 (SFAR 50-2)in the vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP). These modifications were contained inFederal Aviation Administration (FAA) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and FinalRulemaking documents.

The consultations included representatives from: (1) the Havasupai Tribe; (2) the Hopi Tribe;(3) the Hualapai Tribe; (4) the Kaibab Paiute Tribe; (5) the Navajo Nation at Window Rock; (6)the Navajo Nation Gap/Bodaway Chapter; (7) the Navajo Nation Cameron Chapter; (8) thePaiute Tribe of Utah; (9) the Pueblo of Zuni Tribe; and, (10) the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe.

The Hualapai Tribe and the Navajo Nation have an official Tribal Historic Preservation Office(THPO). In addition to tribal representatives, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO) represented the remaining Tribes for Section 106 compliance.

1996

February 22, 1996 - Letter to the Native Americans inviting participation in the environmentalassessment (EA) process.

March 18, 1996 - Meeting with Hualapai Tribal representatives in the Department ofTransportation (DOT) Secretary’s office, also in attendance was the FAA’s AssistantAdministrator for Policy, Planning and International Aviation (API).

March 25 - Letter to the Hualapai Tribe regarding a meeting with the DOT Secretary.

March 29 - Letter from the Hualapai Tribe Chairman to the DOT Secretary, requesting amongother things that SFAR 50-2 and any proposed changes be removed from the airspace overHualapai lands.

April 3 - Letter from the Hualapai Tribe.

H-2

April 4 - Letter from the Hualapai Chairman to the DOT Secretary, requesting compensation andinvolvement in the EA and NPRM process for SFAR 50-2. The Tribe also requested to enter intoa Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to participate in the conduction of the EA and an socio-economic impact study on the proposed changes.

April 5 - Letter from the FAA Western-Pacific Regional Office (AWP-530) advising of four tribesconnected to GCNP, that the Nations were now independent and would want to be contactedindividually. Also advising who the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BOIA) Phoenix Area Office contactpoint was.

April 8 - Telephone call from AWP-530 advising that the Hualapai Tribe would be mostconcerned. This according to the BOIA Truxton Canyon Agency representative.

April 9 - Telephone call with the Hualapai Tribe and the BOIA Truxton Canyon Agency.

April 9 - FedEx copy of the draft EA to the Hualapai Tribe.

April 16 - Letter from the Hualapai Tribe regarding the telephone call of April 9.

April 17 - Letter from the Havasupai Tribe to the DOT Secretary concerning SFAR 50-2.

April 24 - Letter from the Hualapai Tribe to President Clinton, advising that the Department ofInterior (DOI) and DOT was not honoring the commitment to work on a government-to-government basis with the Tribe. May 3 - Letter from the Hualapai Tribe to API, questioning why the Tribe was not invited toparticipate in the meeting Thursday, May 2, in the Old Executive Office Building withrepresentatives from the air tour industry, National Park Service (NPS), the Grand Canyon Trust,and the FAA discussing flight restrictions over the Hualapai reservation.

May 3 - Letter from the Hualapai Tribe requesting cooperating agency status.

May 10 - Telephone call with the BOIA Truxton Canyon Agency representative regarding theHavasupai Tribe.

May 10 - Telephone call with the Hualapai Tribe Chairman regarding funding for a socio-economic impact study, the comment period on the NPRM and draft EA, and the upcomingmeeting.

May 16 - Meeting between the FAA and the Hualapai Tribe in Peach Springs, Arizona (AZ).

May 23 - Letter to the Hualapai Tribe regarding the Grand Canyon NPRM.

June 3 - Letter from the Hualapai Tribe commenting on EA.

H-3

June 6 - Courtesy copy for FAA of a letter to the Hualapai Tribe from the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA), Region IX, advising that EPA will be also reviewing and commentingon the draft EA and NPRM.

June 7 - Letter from the White House to the Hualapai Tribe advising that concerns were passed tothe DOI and DOT Secretaries.

June 12 - Telephone call with the Governor of the Pueblo of Zuni Tribe.

June 14 - Courtesy copy for FAA of a letter from the Pueblo of Zuni Tribe to BIA Phoenix AreaOffice requesting cooperating status.

June 17 - Meeting with the Hualapai and Havasupai Tribes in Peach Springs, AZ.

June 18 - Meeting between the FAA, BOIA and Native Americans in Phoenix, AZ.

June 27 - Letter from the Kaibab Paiute Tribe to the DOT Secretary concerning SFAR 50-2.

June 28 - Telephone call with the Navajo Nation Gap/Bodaway representative.

July 3 - Telephone calls with the Navajo Nation at Window Rock, the Paiute of Utah, theHualapai, and the Pueblo of Zuni Tribes advising that the Flagstaff meeting was being postponed.

July 3- Letter from the Kaibab Paiute Tribe requesting cooperating status.

July 31 - Copies of the NPRM mailed to Tribes.

August 1 - Telephone calls with the Havasupai, the Paiute of Utah, the Pueblo of Zuni, the KaibabPaiute, and the Hopi Tribes.

August 2 - Telephone calls with the Attorney for the Havasupai, the Paiute of Utah, and theAttorney for the Hualapai Tribe.

August 5 - Telephone call with the Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Officer.

August 7 - Letter faxed to the Native Americans inviting them to participate in meetings inFlagstaff, AZ on August 27 and 28. August 7 - Telephone call to and fax to the BOIA PhoenixArea Office regarding the Flagstaff meetings.

August 12 - Telephone call to BOIA Phoenix Area Office regarding comments on theMemorandum of Understanding (MOU) from the BOIA and the Havasupai Tribe.

August 12 - Telephone call with the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe regarding the Flagstaffmeetings.

H-4

August 13 - Telephone call with the Paiute Tribe of Utah regarding the Flagstaff meetings.

August 13 - Telephone call with the Kaibab Paiute Tribe regarding the Flagstaff meetings.

August 16 - Letter from the Hualapai Tribe advising acceptance of invitation to Flagstaff meetingand questioning non-receipt of funding for socio-economic impact study.

August 16 - Telephone call with the Hualapai Tribe regarding attendance at Flagstaff meetings.

August 19 - Telephone call with the Paiute Tribe of Utah regarding the Flagstaff meetings.

August 19 - Telephone call with the Navajo Nation at Window Rock regarding the Flagstaffmeetings.

August 19 - Telephone call with the Pueblo of Zuni Tribe regarding Flagstaff meetings.

August 19 - Telephone call with the Hopi Tribe regarding the Flagstaff meetings.

August 20 - Telephone call with the Attorney for the Havasupai Tribe regarding the Flagstaffmeetings.

August 20 - Telephone call with the Hopi Tribe regarding Flagstaff meetings.

August 20 - Telephone call with the Navajo Nation EPA Office regarding Flagstaff meetings.

August 20 - Telephone call with the Pueblo of Zuni Tribe regarding the Flagstaff meetings.

August 22 - Telephone call with the Navajo Nation Gap/Bodaway Chapter regarding Flagstaffmeetings.

August 22 - Telephone call with the Hopi Tribe regarding Flagstaff meetings.

August 22 - Telephone call with the Pueblo of Zuni Tribe regarding the Flagstaff meetings.

August 27 and 28 - Meeting in Flagstaff, AZ with the Tribes and Nations hosted by the FAA.Among topics discussed were the Cooperating Agency status and the matter of funding forconduction of the socio-economic impact study. Draft copies of the MOU were distributed forNative American review and comment.

September 11 - Faxed letter containing the draft minutes from the August Flagstaff meetings tothe attendees for review and comment.

September 16 - Telephone call with the Pueblo of Zuni regarding public meetings.

September 16 - Telephone call with the Hualapai Tribe regarding public meetings.

H-5

September 16 through 20 - Public meetings in Las Vegas, NV and Scottsdale, AZ.

September 17 - Telephone call with the Hualapai Tribe regarding public meetings.

September 17 - Letter from the Hualapai Tribe to DOI and DOT Secretaries, and the DOISolicitor listing concerns of the Tribe regarding the proposal to shift flights from GCNP toHualapai tribal lands.September 18 - Meeting at the BOIA Phoenix Area Office in with Native Americans.

September 19 - Mailed the documents requested by the Native Americans at the August Flagstaffmeetings.

September 24 - Telephone call with the Kaibab Paiute Tribe regarding the Flagstaff meetings.

October 7 - Faxed letter to the Native Americans containing a signed copy of the minutes fromthe Flagstaff August 27 and 28 meetings.

October 7 - Received a letter identifying the official Hualapai Tribal Preservation Officerepresentative.

October 7 - Telephone call with the Hualapai Tribe.

October 7 - Telephone call with the Pueblo of Zuni Tribe.

October 7 - Telephone call with the Navajo Nation at Window Rock EPA office.

October 7 - Telephone call with the Attorney for the Hopi Tribe.

October 7 - Telephone call with the Havasupai Tribe.

October 7 - Telephone call with the Kaibab Paiute Tribe.

October 8 - Telephone call with the Pueblo of Zuni Tribe.

October 8 - Telephone call with the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe.

October 8 - Telephone call with the Attorney for the Hopi Tribe.

October 8 - Telephone call with the Paiute Tribe of Utah.

October 8 - Telephone call with the Navajo Nation EPA at Window Rock.

October 9/10, 1996 - Participated with Senator McCain in the public hearing in Phoenix, AZ.

H-6

October 10 - Telephone call with the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe.

October 14 - Meeting in Window Rock, AZ between FAA and Navajo Nation representatives. Inattendance was David Kelly, Navajo Air Quality/NNEPA representative.

October 15 - Meeting in Zuni, New Mexico, between FAA and the Pueblo of Zuni Tribe. Inattendance were representatives from the Heritage Historic Preservation Office.

October 16 - Meeting in Flagstaff, AZ, between FAA, the Hopi Tribe and their Attorney.October 17 - Meeting in Fredonia, AZ, between FAA and the Kaibab Paiute tribal councilmembers.

October 21 - Meeting in Supai, AZ, between the FAA, BOIA, the Havasupai Tribe Chairman,Vice-Chairman, Attorney, and tribal council members.

October 21 - Meeting in Peach Springs, AZ with the Hualapai Tribe Historic Preservation Officer,the Tribe Attorney, and tribal council members.

October 22 - Meeting in Cedar City, Utah, between the FAA and Paiute Tribe of Utah Historicrepresentative.

October 23 - Meeting in Phoenix, AZ, between the FAA, the Hualapai Tribe representatives andthe Hualapai Attorney.

October 23 - Received a copy of a Draft Cooperating Management Agreement between the NPSand the Hualapai Tribe.

October 28 - Letter from the Havasupai Tribal Council to FAA advising of their decision not toenter into a MOU.

October 31 - Letter to the Hualapai Tribe granting cooperating agency status.

November 6 - Letter to the Hualapai Tribe regarding environmental justice and the NPRM.

December 11 - Letter from the Hualapai regarding helicopter operations at Grand Canyon West.

December 20 - Letter from the Hualapai THPO regarding the EA.

1997

January 2 - Mailed copies of the Final EA, the NPRM and Draft EA relating to the NoiseLimitations for Aircraft Operations in the Vicinity of GCNP, and the Notice of RouteDetermination via Federal Express (all except San Juan Southern Paiute - no FedEx addressavailable).

H-7

January 9 - Letter from the Navajo Nation THPO regarding the consultation under Section 106.

January 13 - Letter advising of FAA’s intent to fund travel costs for two representatives fromeach tribe to attend meetings in Las Vegas, NV and Phoenix, AZ during the week of February 3.

January 14 - Telephone call with the Attorney for the Havasupai Tribe.

January 16 - Telephone call with the Paiute Tribe of Utah.

January 16 - Letter to the Navajo Nation THPO regarding Section 106 consultation.

January 23 - Telephone call with the Navajo Nation THPO.

January 27 - Telephone call with the Hopi Tribe Attorney.

January 27 - Telephone call with the Hualapai Tribe.

January 28 - Telephone call with the Kaibab Paiute Tribe.

January 28 - Telephone call with the Havasupai Tribe.

January 28 - Telephone call with the Pueblo of Zuni Tribe.

January 30 - Received comments from the Hualapai Tribe on the December 1996 Rulemaking andenvironmental documents.

February 3 & 4 - Meeting with following Native American representatives in Las Vegas:

Havasupai Tribe - Lester Crooke, Roland Manakaja, and Mike Shiel.Hopi Tribe - Franklin Hoover and Leigh Jenkins.Hualapai Tribe - Cisney Havatone, Earl Havatone, Everett Manakaja, Jr., Edgar Walema,and Rob Yoxall.Kaibab Paiute tribe - Brenda Drye and Laura Rae Perez.Navajo Nation - Greg Bowen.Paiute Tribe of Utah - Eleanor Tom.

February 4 - Letter from the Hualapai THPO regarding traditional cultural properties (TCPs).

February 6 - Meeting with the Pueblo of Zuni Tribe in Phoenix, AZ.

February 7 - Letter from the Havasupai Attorney regarding Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)request for copies of all written comments by tour operators in response to the Noise LimitationsNPRM.

H-8

February 14 - Telephone call with the Havasupai Tribe

February 14 - Letter from the Navajo Nation Gap/Bodaway Chapter regarding the appointment ofOfficial Liaisons between the Chapter, NPS and other Federal Agencies in discussions of regionalmanagement issues.

February 19 - Meeting with the Havasupai Tribal council members in Supai Village.

February 19 - Mailed via Federal Express FOIA documentation to the Havasupai Attorney.

February 25 - Received confirmation from the Hualapai THPO regarding attendance at themeeting in Washington, D.C.

March 4 - Meeting with Hualapai Tribe representatives and the Tribe Attorney in Washington,D.C. Discussed Section 106 consultation and other issues.

March 4 - Received comments from the Havasupai Tribe on FAA’s proposed air tour routes forGCNP.

March 4 - Letter to the Navajo Nation Gap/Bodaway Chapter regarding consultation.

March 6 - Participated in Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Cultural Resources WorkingGroup meeting in Tucson, AZ.

March 17 - Letter from the Hualapai Tribe Attorney concerning Section 106 and air tour routes.

March 24 - Telephone call with the Navajo Nation Cameron Chapter.

March 24 - Telephone call with the Havasupai Attorney.

March 26 - Telephone call with the Hualapai Attorney.

March 26 - Faxed response letter to the Hualapai Attorney concerning Section 106, the proposedre-route of commercial air tour routes and a proposed meeting April 9 in Flagstaff, AZ.

March 26 - Faxed letter to the Havasupai Tribe and their Attorney regarding the proposedmeeting of April 9, in Flagstaff, AZ for additional Section 106 consultation.

April 8 - Meeting with the Navajo Nation representatives from Window Rock, Gap/BodawayChapter and Cameron Chapters in Flagstaff, AZ regarding Section 106 and the proposedcommercial air tour routes.

April 8 - Meeting with the Pueblo of Zuni Historic Preservation Officer in Flagstaff, AZ regardingSection 106 and proposed air tour routes.

H-9

April 8 - Letter to DOT Secretary from the Hualapai Attorney forwarding comments on Section106.

April 9 (morning) - Meeting with Havasupai Tribe and BOIA representatives in Flagstaff, AZregarding Section 106 and the proposed commercial air tour routes.

April 9 (afternoon) - Meeting with Hualapai Tribe and BOIA representative in Flagstaff, AZregarding Section 106 and the proposed commercial air tour routes.

May 7 - Meeting and flight on the proposed commercial air tour routes over Hualapai lands byFAA, NPS and Hualapai Tribe representatives.

May 9 - Letter from the Hualapai Attorney to FAA Dockets memorializing the meeting of April 9,between the Hualapai Tribe and FAA representatives.

May 14 - Letter from the Hualapai Attorney regarding a list of studies requested by the HualapaiTribe.

May 23 - Letter from the Hualapai Tribe regarding comments on the commercial air tour routes.

May 28 - Letter from the Hualapai Attorney to FAA Dockets regarding the meeting andoverflight of Tribal lands on May 7.

June 3 - Received the Hualapai Scope of Work for a Cultural Resources study.

June 20 - Letter from the Hualapai Attorney regarding information needed to assess the NPRM.

June 20 - Letter to the Hualapai THPO agreeing to fund an Ethnographic/Archeological Study toidentify TCPs.

June 24 - Meeting in Peach Springs, AZ with FAA, DOI and Hualapai Tribe representatives.

June 27 - Letter from the Hualapai Attorney regarding the proposed commercial air tour routes.

July 8 - Letter from the Hualapai Tribe forwarding some 1986 documents.

July 10 - Letter from the Hualapai Attorney regarding the TCP study.

July 23 - Letter to the Hualapai Attorney forwarding some current Grand Canyon charts.

August 5 - Letter to the FAA Docket from the Havasupai Tribe regarding a revised commercialair tour route through National Canyon.

August 12 - Letter to the Hualapai Tribe regarding the formal Section 106 study.

H-10

August 12 - Letter to the Hualapai THPO forwarding proposed revisions to Statement of Work(SOW) for the TCP study.

August 26 - Mailed the No Adverse Effect Determination letters to all Native Americans exceptthe Hualapai Tribe.

August 26 - Received a courtesy copy of the Hualapai Tribe testimony before the Senate AviationSubcommittee on the National Parks Overflights Act.

September 5 - Letter from the Hualapai THPO forwarding changes to the SOW.

September 17 - Telephone call with the Hualapai Attorney.

September 22 - Meeting with the Hualapai Tribe representatives in Washington, D.C.

September 26 - Letter to the Hualapai THPO regarding the meeting on September 22.

September 30 - Letter to the Hualapai Attorney forwarding 5 (five) copies of the proposedcommercial air tour routes.

October 24 - Letter from the Hualapai Attorney requesting information needed for the October28/29 meetings.

October 27 - Letter from the Hualapai Office of Cultural Resources (OCR) regarding commentson the SOW.

October 28 and 29 - Meeting in Las Vegas, NV with FAA, DOI, NPS, GCNP, BOIA andHualapai representatives.

October 30 (morning) - Meeting in Las Vegas, NV with FAA, GCNP and Navajo Nation WindowRock, Gap/Bodaway and Cameron Chapter representatives.

October 30 (afternoon) - Meeting in Las Vegas, NV with FAA, GCNP and Arizona SHPOrepresentatives.

December 5 - Letter (via fax) to the Hualapai OCR and Attorney forwarding the latest draft of theSOW.

December 16 - Informal meeting with the Hualapai OCR and their contractor regarding the SOW.

December 22 - Letter from the Hualapai OCR containing the revised Phase I budget and schedulefor the SOW.

December 24 - Letter forwarded from the Department of Justice regarding concerns of theHavasupai Tribe relating to overflights of the Grand Canyon.

H-11

1998

January 13 - Letter from the Hualapai Tribe transmitting comments on the December 17, 1997Rule.

January 16 - Letter from the Hualapai Attorney containing revisions to the SOW.

January 21 - Meeting in Flagstaff, AZ with FAA, NPS, BOIA, and Hualapai Tribe representatives.

January 23 - Meeting in Flagstaff, AZ with representatives from the FAA, NPS, BOIA,Havasupai, Hopi and Zuni Tribes, and the Arizona SHPO.

January 24 - Meeting in Gap, AZ with FAA, GCNP and Navajo Nation Gap/Bodaway Chapterrepresentatives.

January 28 - Letter from the Hualapai Attorney regarding the SOW and proposed contract.

January 29 - Letter (via fax) to the Hualapai OCR and Attorney regarding the SOW.

February 5 - Letter to the Hualapai Tribe regarding the September 1997 meeting and Hualapaisensitive canyons.

February 25 - Letter from the Hualapai Attorney regarding Section 106 studies.

March 3 - Letter from the Hualapai Attorney regarding funding of the SOW.

March 13 - Letter to FAA Southwest Regional Office (ASO) from the Pueblo of Zuni Triberegarding a no flight designation for the Zuni Indian Reservation.

March 19 - Letter from the Hualapai Tribal Council regarding a resolution authorizing the signingof the SOW for conduction and FAA funding of the Ethnographic-Archeological Study.

March 20 - Letter from the Hualapai Attorney forwarding the revised subcontract between theHualapai Tribe and PRC Inc.

March 24 - FAA signed the SOW with the Hualapai Tribe.

March 24 - Letter to the Hualapai Attorney forwarding the signed SOW.

March 25 - Letter (via fax) to the Hualapai Attorney forwarding the signed SOW.

April 17 - Letter to the Pueblo of Zuni Tribe from ASO regarding their request for a no flightzone designation for the Zuni Indian Reservation.

H-12

April 28/29 - Meeting in Flagstaff, AZ with FAA, NPS, Native Americans, Environmentalists, andTour Operators.

May 15 - FAA assisted the Hualapai Tribe in getting the Hualapai Airport changed from a Privateto Public Use facility.

May 28 - Letter from the Hualapai Attorney advising that relations between the Tribe and FAAare now proceeding consistent with Executive Order, dated May 14, 1998, on Consultation andCoordination with Indian Tribal Governments.

July 15 - Meeting with Hualapai Tribe representatives in Peach Springs, AZ regarding theproposed commercial air tour routes on the West End of GCNP.

July 23 - Letter from the Hualapai OCR transmitting the status report on the Study.

July 29 - Meeting with the Navajo Nation THPO representative in San Diego, CA.

September 9 - Letter to the Hualapai Attorney regarding the commercial air tour route proposalsand the July meeting.

September 11 - Letter from the Hualapai Attorney regarding the Hualapai response to theproposed commercial air tour routes on the West End.

September 15 - Courtesy copy for FAA of a letter from the Hualapai Attorney regarding theAugust 20 meeting between the Hualapai Tribe and the Air Tour Operators.

October 22 - Letter to the Hualapai Attorney regarding the Hualapai proposed commercial airtour route structure.

November 5 - Letter from the Hualapai OCR transmitting the preliminary list of TraditionalCultural Properties from the Ethnographic Study.

November 13 - Letter (via e-mail) to Arizona SHPO and the Advisory Council on HistoricPreservation representatives regarding the status of GCNP rulemaking actions.

November 16 - Letter from the Hualapai Tribe to the DOT Secretary requesting a meeting.

December 2 - Courtesy copy for FAA of the Hualapai Tribes’ economic development plan forGrand Canyon West Airport.

December 11 - Meeting between the FAA Airports Division and Office of Policy, Planning andInternational, and the Hualapai Tribe in Washington, DC concerning development of GrandCanyon West.

H-13

December 16 - Meeting with the Hualapai Tribe in Las Vegas, NV regarding the Study andproposed commercial air tour routes.

1999

January 25 - Letter to the Hualapai OCR regarding the Study.

February 5 - Letter to the Native Americans inviting participation in a joint tribal meeting March 9and 10, in Mesa, AZ.

February 11 - Letter to the Arizona SHPO inviting participation in the joint tribal meeting.

February 24 - Letter to the Hualapai Tribe inviting participation in the environmental process withcooperating agency status.

February 25 - Letter from the Havasupai Tribe advising of attendance by their attorney at themeeting in Mesa, AZ.

March 9/10 - Meeting in Mesa, AZ with FAA, BOIA, GCNP, Native American representativesfrom the Havasupai, Hualapai, Kaibab Paiute Tribes, and the Navajo Nation, and the ArizonaSHPO.

March 30 - Telephone call with the Hualapai OCR.

March 31 - Letter from the Hualapai OCR transmitting the Final Ethnographic Study Report forPhase I of the SOW.

April 1 - Letter to the Hualapai Attorney forwarding the requested information as to how theFAA developed routes.

April 8 - Telephone call with the Havasupai Tribe Attorney.

April 8 - Telephone calls with the Paiute Tribe of Utah.

April 12 - Telephone call with the Hualapai Tribe OCR.

April 14 - Telephone call with the Hualapai Attorney.

April 20 - Telephone calls with the Hualapai THPO and Attorney.

April 30 – Meeting with Paiute Tribe of Utah in Cedar City, Utah regarding current status ofGrand Canyon rulemaking actions.

H-14

May 3 – Meeting with Hualapai tribal representatives in Santa Fe, NM regarding, among otherthings, the Cooperating Agency agreement.

May 5 – Telephone call with Hualapai OCR regarding meeting in Washington DC week of May19 and 20.

May 12- Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding proposed commercial air tour routesand Cooperating Agency agreement.

May 13 – Telephone call with Hualapai OCR and attorney regarding Cooperating Agencyagreement.

May 13 – Conference call with Hualapai attorney regarding Cooperating Agency agreement andprocess.

May 14 – Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding status of document.

May 18 – Faxed latest changes to Cooperating Agency agreement to Hualapai attorney.

May 19 and 20 – Meeting in Washington DC with Hualapai tribal representatives and attorneys.

May 26 – FedEx map to Hualapai OCR.

June 1 – Conference call with Hualapai OCR and attorneys regarding FAA route development,noise modeling, Rulemaking process, and other matters.

June 4 – Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding schedule for completion, request byOCR for meeting, endangered species and wildlife.

June 8 – Telephone call with Hualapai attorney and DOI representative regarding cumulativeimpacts and development of Grand Canyon West Airport.

June 10 – Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding changes to Cooperating Agencyagreement.

June 11 - Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding Cooperating Agency agreement, areaof potential effect (APE) for ethnographic study and request for meeting.

June 14 – Telephone call with Hualapai THPO regarding meeting.

June 15 – Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding Draft SEA table 2.1 and US Fish andWildlife correspondence.June 16 – Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding final phase I ethnographic study reportand meeting in Santa Fe, NM.

H-15

June 17 – Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding APE for phase II and interim budgetfor study.

June 29 – Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding meeting.

July 1 – Conference call with Hualapai Tribe, THPO, attorney, and representatives of FAAregarding Phase II, APE, funding, noise modeling and meeting.

July 7 – Letter to each Tribe, Navajo Nation and Arizona SHPO transmitting the DraftSupplemental Environmental Assessment (DSEA). The letter also advised that the FAA hadfound that the Undertaking (as currently proposed) would have no adverse effect on properties oftraditional cultural or religious significance (for all except the Hualapai Tribe), in accordance withthe National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Section 106. Letters sent via FedEx.

July 8 - Telephone call with Hualapai THPO regarding phase II of study.

July 9 – Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding latitude/longitudes of proposed routes.

July 12 – Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding noise modeling.

July 13 – Meeting with Hualapai Tribal representatives, attorney and FAA regarding APEdiscussion, noise modeling and other matters.

July 22 – Telephone calls with Navajo Nation THPO representative an, Tribal member regardingDSEA and meeting. Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding Cooperating Agencyagreement.

July 28 – Telephone calls with Navajo Nation, Gap/Bodaway and Cameron Chapterrepresentatives regarding meeting.

August 3 – Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding Hualapai support operations.

August 4 – Conference call with Hualapai attorney regarding economic impact to tribe fromallocations.

August 9 – Telephone call with Navajo Nation Chapter representatives regarding economicimpact and meeting. Telephone call with Arizona SHPO regarding Section 106 consultation.

August 10 – Telephone calls with Navajo Nation Chapter representatives regarding economicimpact and meeting in Gap, AZ.

August 11 – Telephone call with Navajo Nation THPO representative regarding Section 106.Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding amended statement of work (SOW) and othermatters.

H-16

August 12 – Telephone call with Hualapai THPO regarding meeting.

August 19 – Telephone call with Navajo Nation Chapter representative regarding meeting atGap/Bodaway Chapter office.

August 21 – Traveled to Gap, AZ for meeting with Navajo Nation Cameron and Gap/Bodawayrepresentatives. No Tribal representatives showed up, left box with materials by Chapter officedoor with ‘to contact FAA’ information.

August 24 – Telephone call with Navajo Nation Gap/Bodaway Chapter representative regardingmissed meeting, economic concerns and their ability to get concerns addressed anyway.

August 27 – Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding submission of comments to docketand meeting in Santa Fe.

September 7 – Telephone calls with Hualapai attorney regarding Hualapai amended SOW.

September 8 – Telephone calls with Hualapai attorney regarding SOW and meeting. Telephonecall with Hualapai THPO regarding SOW and contract for invoicing.

September 9 – Letter to the Navajo THPO, Hopi and Zuni Tribes, and the Arizona SHPOadvising of the proposed change to the Desert View Flight-Free Zone (FFZ) in response tocomments received during the public comment period from representatives of the Navajo NationCameron and Gap/Bodaway Chapters. The letter also advised that although the FAA wasproposing to further modify the Desert View FFZ, the finding of no adverse effect issued in July1999 remained valid.

September 10 – Telephone call with Navajo Nation Department of Transportation representativeregarding economic impact from allocations.

September 15, 16 and morning of 17 – Meeting with Hualapai THPO, Tribal representatives,Resort Corporation, and attorneys in Santa Fe regarding SOW, Cooperating Agency agreement,and economic impact from allocations.

September 21 – Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding Hualapai support operationsnumbers.

September 22 – Telephone call with Hualapai Resort Corporation representative regardingsupport operation numbers.

September 23 – Conference call with Hualapai Tribal representatives and attorney regarding APE,support operations, routes, aircraft altitudes, TCPs and other matters.

H-17

September 27 – Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding SOW and support operations.Telephone call with Hualapai OCR representative regarding support operation numbers.Conference call with Hualapai OCR representatives and attorneys regarding SOW and APE.

September 30 – Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding request for information relatingto breakdown of number of flights per route and revised SOW.

October 7 – Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding McCain rider and meeting for SOW.Telephone call with Havasupai attorney regarding status of legislation and GCNP rulemakingactions.

October 10 – Letter from the Arizona SHPO concurring with the FAA finding, contingent upontribal concurrence (letter attached).

October 13 and 14 – Meeting with Hualapai THPO, attorney and DOI representatives regardingeconomic impact, support operations, APE, noise threshold, and other matters.

October 14 – Telephone call with Hualapai Corp. representative regarding support operationnumbers.

October 15 – Telephone call with Navajo Nation THPO representative regarding Section 106finding. Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding support operation numbers.

October 18 – Mail copy of Hualapai maps to THPO.

October 21 – Telephone call with Hualapai OCR representative regarding proposed route BlueDirect South. FedEx five extra copies of Hualapai map to OCR.

October 25 – Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding support operation numbers andSOW.

October 26 – Telephone call with Hualapai OCR representative regarding noise analysis andsupport operations. Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding SOW changes.

October 27 – Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding SOW, support operations exitpoints.

November 8 – Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding SOW.


November 10 – Conference call with Hualapai attorney regarding SOW.


H-18

November 17 – Telephone call with Hualapai Corp. representative regarding support operationnumbers. Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding final report for Phase II, supportoperation numbers, SOW and other matters.

November 18 – FedEx SOW to Hualapai Tribe for signing.

November 19 – Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding meeting and phase II report.

November 23 – Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding meeting, noise modeling andvisual analysis.

November 24 – Telephone call with Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) regardingHualapai Programmatic Agreement (PA). Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding PA.Telephone call with Hualapai Corp. representative regarding dates of airport closure.

November 29 – Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding FedEx package. Telephone callwith Hualapai THPO and attorney regarding final phase II report, and other matters.

November 30 – Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding PA and meeting in Washington,DC.

December 1 – Telephone call with ACHP regarding PA. Telephone call with Hualapai Triberegarding tribal election results. Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding supplementalnoise data.

December 6 – Conference call with Hualapai Tribe, OCR, Resort Corporation, attorney, NPS andDOI representatives regarding support operations and other matters.

December 7 – Telephone call with ACHP regarding Hualapai PA.

December 8 – Telephone call with Hualapai THPO regarding authority to copy Phase IIA report.Conference call with Hualapai Tribe, OCR, THPO, attorney, Resort Corp., ACHP, DOI, andGCNP representatives regarding PA.

December 9 – Telephone call with ACHP regarding Hualapai PA.

December 14-16 – Meeting in Washington D.C. with representatives of Hualapai Tribe, THPO,OCR, attorney, DOI, GCNP, and ACHP representatives regarding PA.

December 17 – Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding contract amendment.

December 18 – Fax draft PA to Hualapai THPO, attorney and other participants.

December 20 – Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding PA.

H-19

December 22- Telephone call with ACHP regarding Hualapai PA. Conference call with Hualapaiattorneys regarding PA and cooperating agency consultation on draft final supplementalenvironmental assessment (FSEA).

December 27 – Conference call with Hualapai Tribe, THPO, Tribal attorney, DOI, GCNP, andACHP regarding PA.

2000

January 3 – Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding PA.

January 4 – Conference call with Hualapai Tribe, THPO, Tribal attorney, DOI, GCNP, andACHP regarding PA.

January 5 – Conference call with Hualapai Tribe, THPO, Tribal attorney, DOI, GCNP, andACHP regarding PA.

January 7 – Telephone call with Hualapai attorney regarding PA and cooperating agencyconsultation on draft FSEA.

January 7 – NPS representative signs PA relating to Hualapai Tribe.

January 10 – ACHP and FAA representatives sign PA relating to Hualapai Tribe. Meetingscheduled for January 13 for Hualapai Tribe and THPO to sign PA postponed due to HualapaiTHPO emergency.

APPENDIX I

CONTACT LIST

FINAL MAIL-LIST FORGRAND CANYON

SupplementalENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

I-1

Geneal Anderson, ChairwomanPaiute Indian Tribe of Utah400 North Paiute DriveCedar City, UT 84720

Rob Arnberger, Supt.Grand Canyon National ParkP.O. Box 129Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Lisa AtkinsCongressman Bob Stump211 Cannon BldgWashington, DC 20515

Karen AtkinsonDOI - Off. of Asst. Sec FWP1849 C Street NW Room 3156Washington, DC 20240

The Honorable Bruce Babbitt, SecretaryDepartment of the Interior1849 C Street, NWWashington, DC 20242

Melissa BaileyAOPA421 Aviation WayFrederick, MD 21701

Jan BalsamGCNP ArcheologistP.O. Box 129Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Geoff BarnardGrand Canyon Trust2601 North Fort Valley RdFlagstaff, AZ 86001

Dr. Donald James BarryAustin, TX

Mary BaumbachOffice of Rep. Matt Salmon4110 N. Scottsdale Rd.,Suite 168Scottsdale, AZ 85251

David BarnaPublic Affairs OfficeNational Park Service1849 C Street NW MS3424Washington, DC 20240

Richard BegayNavajo Nation Historic Pres.P.O. Box 4950Window Rock, AZ 86515

Kelsey Begaye, Pres.The Navajo NationP.O. Box 9000Window Rock, AZ 86515

Sen. Robert Bennett431 Senate Dirksen Office BuildingWashington, DC 20510

Louise Benson - ChairmanHualapai TribeP.O. Box 179Peach Springs, AZ 86434

The Honorable Shelley Berkley1505 Longworth House Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515

Malcolm Bowekaty, Gov.The Pueblo of ZuniP.O. Box 339Zuni, NM 87327

I-2

Carmen BradleyKaibab Paiute Indian TribeHC-65, Box 2Pipe Spring, AZ 86022

Clay BravoHualapai TribeP.O. Box 300Peach Springs, AZ 86434

Dennis BrownridgeHC 63 Box 3040Mayer, AZ 86333

The Honorable Richard Bryan269 Senate Russell Office BuildingWashington, DC 20510

Angellita BulletsKaibab Paiute Tribe -Historic PreservationHC 65 Box 2Fredonia, AZ 86022

Brenda Burns, PresidentArizona State Senate1700 W. Washington StreetPhoenix, AZ 85007

The Honorable Chris Cannon118 Cannon HOBWashington, DC 20515

Kevin CookSenator John Kyl702 Senate Hart BldgWashington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable Merrill Cook1431 Longworth Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515

P.J. Connolly7305 West Bridle TrailFlagstaff, AZ 86001

Phil Davis

Andrea Dearing, Librarian113 South 1st St.Williams, AZ 86046

Jane Dee HullOffice of GovernorState of Arizona1700 W. Washington St.Phoenix, AZ 85007

DirectorZuni Heritage and Historic PreservationThe Pueblo of ZuniP.O. Box 339Zuni, NM 87327-0339

Alan DownerThe Navajo Nation THPOP.O. Box 4950Window Rock, AZ 86515

Brenda Drye - Cultural OfficeKaibab Paiute TribeHC 65 Box 2Fredonia, AZ 86022

The Honorable John J. Duncan2400 Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515

Rob Elliott, PresidentArizona Rafting Adv4050 E. Huntington DriveFlagstaff, AZ 86001

Rick ErnenweinNPS, IMDE-SP.O. Box 25287Denver, CO 80225-0287

I-3

Herb FinkelsteinCollege of Engineering and Applied SciencesArizona State UniversityP.O. Box 875506Tempe, AZ 85287-5506

Robert FisherOffice of Sen. John McCain2400 E. Arizona Biltmore Cir.Suite 1150, Bldg. #1Phoenix, AZ 85016

Flagstaff Public LibraryPublic Service/Reference Room300 W. AspenFlagstaff, AZ 86001

Mae FranklinP.O. Box 3093Tuba City, AZ 86045

Fredonia Public LibraryDirectorP.O. Box 217Fredonia, AZ 86022

H. Paul Friesema, ProfessorCenter for Urban Affairs & PolicyNorthwestern University2040 Sheridan RoadEvanston, IL 60208-4100

Art GallensonGC Air Tour CouncilP.O. Box 60035Boulder City, NV 87001

Grand Canyon Community LibraryLibrarianP.O. Box 518Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Carol Griffith, DeputyArizona State Parks1300 W. WashingtonPhoenix, AZ 85007

Grand Canyon National Park Library,LibrarianP.O. Box 129Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Diane Gruner

Jim GullyesArizona Tourism Industry

Tom HaleNPS2255 N. Gemini DriveFlagstaff, AZ 86001

Brenda HalvorsonPapillon HelicoptersP.O. Box 1459Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

The Honorable James Hansen242 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515

Dave HarlowDirector, Phoenix OfficeU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service2321 W. Royal Palm RoadPhoenix, AZ 85021

The Honorable Orrin Hatch131 Senate Russell Office BuildingWashington, DC 20510

I-4

Carol HeathingtonArizona State Historic Pres.1300 W. WashingtonPhoenix, AZ 85007

Wes HenryNPS-WASO-RAD1849 C Street NWWashington, DC 20242

Amy Heuslin (2 copies)BOIA - Phoenix Area OfficeP.O. Box 10Phoenix, AZ 85001

Dick HingsonP.O. Box 630132Rockville, UT 84763

Bob HolmesOffice of Rep. J.D. Hayworth1023 Longworth HOBWashington, DC 20515

Monza HongaHualapai Tribe THPOP.O. Box 310Peach Springs, AZ 86434

Ann HowardArizona State Historic Preservation Office1300 W. WashingtonPhoenix, AZ 85007

Todd HullOffice of Rep. James V. Hansen242 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515

Tom Hutchinson, PresidentQuiet Skies AllianceP.O. Box 2321Sedona, AZ 86339-2321

Peter ImusHualapai TribeP.O. Box 310Peach Springs, AZ 86434

Loretta JacksonHualapai Department of Cultural ResourcesP.O. Box 310Peach Springs, AZ 86434

Evelyn James, Pres.San Juan Southern Paiute TribeP.O. Box 2565Tuba City, AZ 86045

E.J. JamsguardOffice of Sen. Jon Kyl2200 East Camelback Rd., Suite 120Phoenix, AZ 85016

Susan JordanNordhaus Law Office200 W. DeVargas, Suite 9Santa Fe, NM 87501

Eric Jorgensen

Sonia JoyaRep. John Ensign1000 E. Sahara #DLas Vegas, NV 89104

Kanab City LibraryDirector13 South 100 East #129-6Kanab, UT 84741

Leigh KuwanwisiwmaCultural Preservation OfficeThe Hopi TribeP.O. Box 123Kykotsmovi, AZ 86039

I-5

Jeri LedbetterGrand Canyon River GuidesP.O. Box 1934Flagstaff, AZ 86301

Dorothy LeeNavajo Nation - Gap/BodawayChapterP.O. Box 2065Page, AZ 86040

Teresa LegerNordhaus, Law Office200 W. DeVargas St. Suite 9Santa Fe, NM 87501

Johnny M. Lehi, Sr. – Vice Pres.San Juan Southern Paiute TribeP.O. Box 1989Tuba City, AZ 86045

Marian LeonardoOffice of Rep. Ed Pastor2465 Rayburn HOBWashington, DC 20515

Jacqueline LoweyNPS Deputy Director1849 C Street NWWashington, DC 20240

Roland ManakajaHavasupai Tribe - Historic &Cultural ResourcesP.O. Box 10Supai, AZ 86435

Aaron Mapatis, Vice ChairmanHualapai TribeP.O. Box 310Peach Springs, AZ 86434

Carla MattixDOI - Office of Solicitor1849 C Street NW Room 3120Washington, DC 20240

Paul Matzner, ChairNatural Quiet (Quietude) ComNature Sounds Soc1000 Oak StreetOakland, CA 94607

Jim McCarthy15040 South 40th PlacePhoenix, AZ 85044-6747

The Honorable John McCain241 Senate Russell Office BuildingWashington, DC 20510

Bob McCuneGC Air Tour CouncilP.O. Box 11008Las Vegas, NV 89111

Bob McNicholsBOIA - Truxton Canyon Agcy.P.O. Box 37Valentine, AZ 86437

Ken MittleholtzUSEPA Office of Federal Action401 M Street, SWMailcode 2252AWashington, DC 20560

Mohave County LibraryATTN: Lee SmithP.O. Box 7000Kingman, AZ 86402-7000

Cliff MuzzioPapillon Airways1502 W. Surrey Ave.Phoenix, AZ 85029-1738

I-6

National Air Transport Asoc.Andy Cebula, Vice President4226 King StreetAlexandria, VA 22302

National Park ServiceDenver Service Center (DSC-MS)Technical Information CenterP.O. Box 25287Denver, CO 80225-0287

Navajo Nation - Gap/Bodaway ChapterChapter CoordinatorP.O. Box 1835Tuba City, AZ 86045

Margie NowickAdv. Council - Western Office12136 West Bayaud Ave.Lakewood, CO 80228

Drucilla NullAdvisory Council on Historic Preservation1100 Penn. Ave. NW, Room 809Washington, DC 20004

Maureen OltroggeGCNP - Public AffairsP.O. Box 129Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Loren PanteahPueblo of Zuni TribeP.O. Box 339Zuni, NM 87327-0339

Carl Pope, Exec DirectorSierra Club85 Second StreetSan Francisco, CA 94105

Pamela Pride EatonRegional Director, 4 Corner States,Wilderness Society7475 Dakin Street, Suite 410Denver, CO 80221

Phoenix Public LibraryGovernment Documents1221 N. Central Ave.Phoenix, AZ 85004

Phoenix Public LibraryArizona Room1221 N. Central Ave.Phoenix, AZ 85004

John PutnamClark County, Department of Aviation

Jonathon Raye

The Honorable Ralph Regula2309 Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515The Honorable Harry Reid528 Senate Hart Office BuildingWashington, DC 20510

Leonard Robbins (2 copies)BOIA - Navajo Area Office301 W. Hill/P.O. Box 1060Gallup, NM 87305-1060

Craig Sanderson - Vice Pres.Aviation Services WScenic AirlinesP.O. Box 1385Page, AZ 86040

Bill SchmidtNPS-NRSS1849 C Street NWWashington, DC 20240

I-7

Alan Sedik (2 copies)Environmental Qual. OfficerBOIA - ABQ Area OfficeP.O. Box 26567Albuquerque, NM 87125-6567

Mike Shiel, Esq.Havasupai Tribal Attorney234 N. Central Suite 722Phoenix, AZ 85004

Dave Simon, DirectorNPCA SW Region823 Gold Ave. SWAlbuquerque, NM 87102

Robert ShortyNavajo Nation - Cameron Chap.P.O. Box 85Cameron, AZ 86020

Tommy Siyuja, ChairmanThe Havasupai TribeP.O. Box 10Supai, AZ 86435

The Honorable Rodney E. Slater, SecretaryDepartment of Transportation400 7th Street, SWWashington, DC 20590

Ethel Smith (12 copies)DOI Office of EnvironmentalPolicy & ComplianceRoom 2340 - MIBWashington, DC 20240

Dan Spotskey NPS Grand Canyon ScienceCenter2255 North Gemini Drive, Bldg. 3Flagstaff, AZ 86001

Scott StewartCongressman Bob Stump230 N. 1st Ave.Phoenix, AZ 85025

Don SutherlandBOIA - Env. Service Staff1849 C Street NWMail Stop 4516Washington, DC 20240

Superintendent - Env. Coord.BOIA - Hopi AgencyP.O. Box 158Keams Canyon, AZ 86034

John TagamiSenator Daniel Akaka (HI)720 Hart BldgWashington, DC 20510

Kerry TaylorOffice of Sen. Daniel Akaka (HI)720 Hart BuildingWashington, DC 20510

Wayne Taylor, ChairmanThe Hopi TribeP.O. Box 123Kykotsmovi, AZ 86039

Loretta TsinigineNavajo Nation - Cameron Chap.P.O. Box 85Cameron, AZ 86020

John VerkampState Representative2620 N. FremontFlagstaff, AZ 86001

Margaret Vick, AttorneyThe Havasupai Tribe1215 Del Rio Dr.Tempe, AZ 85282

I-8

Randall Walker,Clark County, Director of Aviation

Edgar WalemaHualapai TribeP.O. Box 310Peach Springs, AZ 86434

Washington County LibraryReference Department50 South MainSt. George, UT 84770

Tracy WatsonUSA Today-9News500 Speer Blvd.Denver, CO 80203

Ken WeberNPS, GCNPP.O. Box 129Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Lance WengerOffice of Rep. John ShadeggRoom 403 Cannon HOBWashington, DC 20515

Ron WilliamsAir Star HelicoptersP.O. Box 3379Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Bob Witzeman, Cons. ChairMaricopa Audubon Society4619 E. Arcadia LanePhoenix, AZ 85018

David Young, CEOScenic AirlinesP.O. Box 1385Page, AZ 86040

David YountFAA ATCTP.O. Box 3368Tusayan, AZ 86023

POSTCARD MAIL-LIST FORGRAND CANYON

SupplementalENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

I-9

Brad AckGrand Canyon Trust2601 North Fort Valley RdFlagstaff, AZ 86001

Gary Adams, DirectorArizona Division of Aero.P.O. Box 13588, MD426MPhoenix, AZ 85002-3588

Airline Pilots Association1625 Mass. Ave., NWWashington, DC 20036

Air Transport Association of AmericaSuite 11001301 Pennsylvania Ave., NWWashington, DC 20004-1707

Floyd Allen4216 W. HearnPhoenix, AZ 85023

Arizona Film CommissionAttn: Bill Kirkpatrick3800 N. Central Ave. Bldg. DPhoenix, AZ 85012

Dr. AybarWestwind Aviation732 W. Deer ValleyPhoenix, AZ 85027

Sandy Bahr, ChairmanSierra Club - AZ Chapter516 E. Portland StreetPhoenix, AZ 85004

Ron BaningPapillon Airways1502 W. Surrey Ave.Phoenix, AZ 85029-1738

Alexis BaristNPCA1776 Mass. Ave.,Washington, DC 20036

Cathi Barthwick118 Sherwood LaneFlagstaff, AZ 86001

Mike BashlorPapillon HelicoptersP.O. Box 455Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Cindy BeanPapillion Airlines12515 Willows Rd NESuite 200Kirkland, WA 98034-8795

Miles Becker6709 76th STWTacoma, WA 98467

Ricarda BennettBennett/Cox Consultants148 GazaniaThousand Oaks, CA 91362

Steve Bone, Chief RangerGCNPP.O. Box 129Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

I-10

Boros & GarofaloAttn: Kathryn Harris1201 Connecticut Ave NWSuite 700Washington, DC 20036

Calvin Bowes2433 East McDowell #50Phoenix, AZ 85008

Bryan BrackenFire Mgt. OfficerArizona South Field Office345 E. Riverside DriveSt. George, UT 84770-6714

Frank BrandtNAAS3505 E. Ranier LoopFlagstaff, AZ 86004

Bob BroadbentMcCarran AirportLas Vegas, NV 89117

Kensey BrownAir Star HelicoptersP.O. Box 3379Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Steve Brown, Senior Vice-Pres.AOPA421 Aviation WayFrederick, MD 21701

Jennifer BurnsNPS2255 N. Gemini DriveFlagstaff, AZ 86001

Karyn CampbellCanyon Airport ShuttleP.O. Box 3264Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Ed Carlin, SuperintendentAlbright Training CenterP.O. Box 477Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Roger CarlinMDHS Bldg 543/D2015000 E. McDowell RdMesa, AZ 85215-9797

Julie CartLos Angeles TimesWestern Bureau1430 Larimer St., Ste 206Denver, CO 80202

Charles W. Cartwright, Jr.Regional Forester, USF Svc.517 Gold Ave., SWAlbuquerque, NM 87102

Daniel F. CasidyGrand Canyon Pioneer Society8540 N. Central #27Phoenix, AZ 85020

Paulson ChacoNavajo Nation DOTP.O. Box 4620Window Rock, AZ 86515Tom Chauncey, II66 N. Country Club Dr.Phoenix, AZ 85014

Greer ChesherP.O. Box 630213Rockville, UT 84763

Teri CleelandKaibab Nat’l Forest800 S. Sixth St.Williams, AZ 86046

I-11

Wiley CornCowboy Transportation CompanyP.O. Box 176Calipatria, CA 92233

Mike CovaltADOT AeronauticsP.O. Box 3188Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Jim CrusonAir Vegas, Inc.P.O. Box 11008Las Vegas, NV 89111

Ken CzarnowskiRocky Mt. Nat’l ParkEstes, CO 80517

Phil D’AlessioAir Grand Canyon6000 Janine Dr.Prescott, AZ 86301

John DavisonP.O. Box 1684Flagstaff, AZ 86002

Danny DemelAir Star HelicoptersP.O. Box 3379Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Ken DicusDOI - OASOne W. Deer Valley RdPhoenix, AZ 85027

DirectorTransportation DepartmentState of Arizona206 S. 17th Ave.Phoenix, AZ 85007

Bette Anne DomiliciGCP ServiceRR 3 Box 148Flagstaff, AZ 86004-9420

Bob DonaldsonGrand Canyon AirlinesP.O. Box 3268Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Kathy DrouinArizona Daily SunP.O. Box 1849Flagstaff, AZ 86002

Dick DyerCalifornia DOT, Aero. Prog.P.O. Box 942873, (MS40)Sacramento, CA 94273-0001

Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund1631 Glen Arm Pl. Suite 300Denver, CO 80202

Mike EbersoleAir Ops Mgr.P.O. Box 129Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Editorial ManagerFederal Times6883 Commercial DriveSpringfield, VA 22159-0190

Kate EpstinKNAZP.O. Box 3360Flagstaff, AZ 86003

Rick EvansPapillon HelicoptersP.O. Box 3625Tusayan, AZ 86023

I-12

Ron EverhartNPS - Intermtn AreaP.O. Box 25287Lakewood, CO 80225

Don FalveyZion National ParkP.O. Box 493Springdale, VT 84767

Loretta Fogg363 Virginia Street #6El Segundo, CA 90245

Melanie FramkelKNAUP.O. Box 5764Flagstaff, AZ 86011

Steve Frye - Chief RangerP.O. Box 35W. Glacier, MT 89863

Brad FuquaGrand Canyon News118 S. 3rd St.Williams, AZ 86046

Norm GabeilEnviro-R-Us1123 N. Navajo Dr.Flagstaff, AZ 86001

Sharon GalbreathGC Chapter - Sierra ClubP.O. Box 38Flagstaff, AZ 86002-0038

Karl GawellThe Wilderness Society900 - 17th St., NWWashington, DC 20006

Casey GibbonsAir Star HelicoptersP.O. Box 3379Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Dave Gilliom - MGRAWP - FSDOP.O. Box 92007, WPCLos Angeles, CA 90009

Flossie Girty - Fld Rep.South Paiute Field StationP.O. Box 720St. George, UT 84771

Grand Canyon AirlinesP.O. Box 3301Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Rob Grumbles, ChairmanMohave County Land Use Comm.P.O. Box 7000Kingman, AZ 86402-7000

Jack GuckianKPHO - TV54016 W. Black CanyonPhoenix, AZ 85017

Raymond GunnGCNP - Chief of ConcessionsP.O. Box 129Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Karen GustinP.O. Box 477Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Allen HaegquistSDL FSDO15041 N. Airport Dr.Scottsdale, AZ 85260

I-13

Elling HalvorsonPapillon Airways, Inc.12515 Willows Rd NE Suite 200Kirkland, WA 98072

Rob Harrison1275 N. Indian HillClaremont, CA 91711

Helicopter Assoc Int’l1635 Prince StreetAlexandria, VA 22314

Larry Henson, Reg. ForesterUSDA Forest Svc., Region 3517 Gold Ave., SW Fed. Bldg.Albuquerque, NM 87102

Nelson HochbergFlagstaff Safe Flyers3303 W Shannon Dr.Flagstaff, AZ 86001

HQ ACC/CEVPAttn: Linda A. DeVine, REM129 Andrews St. Suite 102Langley AFB, VA 23665-2769

Linda Jalbert - NPSP.O. Box 596Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

James JenkinsKenai HelicoptersP.O. Box 1429Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Sabrina JohnsonAir Grand Canyon6000 Janine Dr.Prescott, AZ 86301

Paul Joly - SupervisorFAA - Grand Canyon7181 Amego StreetLas Vegas, NV 89119

Glenn Joki, Fire Mgt. OfficerPhoenix Field Office2015 W. Deer Valley RoadPhoenix, AZ 85027-2099

John JustenBell HelicopterP.O. Box 482 (0840MS)Ft. Worth, TX 76101

Lewis KaplanAir Nevada AirlinesP.O. Box 11105Las Vegas, NV 89111

Lisa KearsleyP.O. Box 22459Flagstaff, AZ 86002

Thomas KellerWilliams GC Chamber of Com.200 W. Railroad Ave.Williams, AZ 86046

Keith Kelley, DirectorAgriculture Dept.1699 W. Adams, Room 421Phoenix, AZ 85007

Jim KenneyFAA Scottsdale FSDO15041 N. Airport DriveScottsdale, AZ 85260

Tom KenworthyThe Washington Post,Rocky Mountain Bureau25873 Bristlecone CourtGolden, CO 80401

I-14

Ray KetringControl Data SystemP.O. Box 473Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Michael KidneyHogan and Hartsen555 13th St NWWashington, DC 20004

Tom Kiernan, PresidentNat’l Parks & Cons. Assoc.1776 Mass Ave. NWWashington, DC 20036

Jon KnappMcDonnel Douglas Helicopter5000 E McDowellMesa, AZ 85215

News EditorKVNA - Radio2690 E. HuntingtonFlagstaff, AZ 86004

Dave & Marcia LamkinSierra Club999 W. CoyFlagstaff, AZ 86001

Mike LampKNAU - News DirectorP.O. Box 5764Flagstaff, AZ 86011

Joe Lane, Special AssistantIntergovernmental AffairsOffice of the Governor1700 W. Washington St.Phoenix, AZ 85007

Cliff LangnessScenic Airlines2705 Airport Dr.Las Vegas, NV 89030-4301

Cliff Langston, PresidentScenic AirlinesP.O. Box 1385Page, AZ 86040

Dan LawlerAir Grand Canyon6000 Janine Dr.Prescott, AZ 86301

Earl Lawrence, DirectorExper. Acft. Association Governors ProgramP.O. Box 3086Oshkosh, WI 54903-3086

Jack LeBaronSedona Airport Manager235 Air Terminal Dr.Sedona, AZ 86336

Mark LeBlancAirstar Helicopters2172 E Apollo Dr.Tempe, AZ 85283

Bruce LenonLake Mead Nat’l Rec. Area601 Nevada HighwayBoulder City, NV 89005

Lori LeonardNat’l Assoc. of State Aviation Offices8401 Colesville Rd, Suite 505Silver Spring, MD 20910

Keith LeslieFlagstaff Safe Flyers3303 W. Shannon Dr.Flagstaff, AZ 86001

Mike LevittKPHO - TV54016 W. Black CanyonPhoenix, AZ 85017

I-15

Norma LiskaAir Grand Canyon6000 Janine Dr.Prescott, AZ 86301

William LockhartCollege of LawUniversity of UtahSalt Lake City, UT 84112

Dave Lowry8800 Solar RoadFlagstaff, AZ 86004

Anita MacFarlaneAudubon Society505 Morgan RdSedona, AZ 86336

Managing EditorLas Vegas Review JournalP.O. Box 70Las Vegas, NV 89125

Managing EditorLas Vegas SunP.O. Box 4275Las Vegas, NV 89127

George MancusoGranite VisionsRR 3 Box 148Flagstaff, AZ 86004-9420

Evelyn MartinCitizens for Arpt Noise Ab.P.O. Box 666Annandale, VA 22003-0666

Tom MartinGrand Canyon River GuideP.O. Box 1934Flagstaff, AZ 86002

Robert McElyea1819 West HighlandPhoenix, AZ 85015

Robin MelroseGrand Canyon Trust900 - 17th St., NW Suite 300Washington, DC 20006-2501

Bob MelvilleRiver Guide, AZRA4050 E. HuntingtonFlagstaff, AZ 86001

Robert MestaUS Fish & Wildlife Service2493 Portola Road, Suite BVentura, CA 93003

Dave Mihalic - Supt.Glacier Nat’l ParkGlacier, MT 89863

Borden MillerPapillon HelicoptersP.O. Box 455Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Cheryl MillerAir Grand Canyon6000 Janine Dr.Prescott, AZ 86301

David G. MillsKing Airlines500 E. Hwy. #146 Suite KLas Vegas, NV 89124

Terry MiyaucikSkydance Helicopter3291 S. Lindsey LaneFlagstaff, AZ 86001

I-16

Ashley NorthcuttRoute 4, Box 707Flagstaff, AZ 86001

Jeff NorthcuttAir Star HelicoptersP.O. Box 3379Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

T. R. NortonAir Star HelicoptersP.O. Box 3379Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Yancy O’Barr - Vice PresGC People for the WestP.O. Box 3067Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Alan O’Neill, Supt.Lake Mead Nat’l Rec. Area601 Nevada Hwy.Boulder City, NV 89005

Glenn Orthman - Legis Asst1619 Duke StreetAlexandria, VA 22314

Len ParkerNAUP.O. Box 5619Flagstaff, AZ 86200

Stan ParkerFlagstaff Safe Flyers3303 W Shannon DriveFlagstaff, AZ 86001

Anita & Bob Peterson1333 Candleridge DriveBoise, ID 83712

Jim PettyAir Vegas AirlinesP.O. Box 11008Las Vegas, NV 89111

Tom PittengerGRCA NPSP.O. Box 129Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Bill Pool2249 East Christy DrivePhoenix, AZ 85028

Patricia S. PortUSDOI Regional Env. Officer600 Harrison St. Suite 515San Francisco, CA 94107-1376

Sandy PowellNAVREP - AWP930FAA Western RegionP.O. Box 92007-WWPCLos Angeles, CA 90009-2007

David Prill1241 E. Bryan AveSalt Lake City, UT 84105

Richard QuartaroliRes. Lib. - ATA @ GCESP.O. Box 22459Flagstaff, AZ 86002-2459

Chris RasmussenWilliams/Grand Canyon NewsP.O. Box 667Williams, AZ 86046

Joel RauschKenai HelicoptersP.O. Box 1429Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

I-17

Rick RileyBell HelicopterP.O. Box 482FT. Worth, TX 76101

John P. Ritenour ChiefResource ManagementGlen Canyon Nat’l Rec. AreaP.O. Box 1507Page, AZ 86040

Dr. Lynn RobbinsHuxley CollegeWestern Washington UniversityBellingham, WA 98225-9085

Tom RobinsonGrand Canyon Trust900 - 17th St., NW, Suite 300Washington, DC 20006-2501

Judy RocchioNPS - Aircraft OVRFLTS600 Harrison St. Suite 600San Francisco, CA 94107

Chuck RushPapillon HelicoptersP.O. Box 455Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Roberto SaavedraAir Star AirlinesP.O. Box 475Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

James SantiniAir Access Coal.1101 King St. #350Alex., VA 22314

Scenic AirlinesP.O. Box 1385Page, AZ 86040

Arthur SchneiderPapillon/Orlando Aviation1642 Hangar RoadSanford, FL 32773

Bruno R. SchreckAerial Aesthetics873 BroadwayNew York, NY 10003

Keith ScottAir Grand CanyonP.O. Box 3399Tusayan, AZ 86023

Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund1625 Mass Ave., NW suite 702Washington, DC 20036-2212

Larry SiggelkowEagle Canyon Airlines275 E. Tropicana Ave., #220Las Vegas, NV 89109

Mallory SmithNPS - Management Asst.P.O. Box 129Grand Canyon, AZ 86023.

Chris SmithSalt Lake Tribune143 South Main StreetSalt Lake City, UT 84111

Rob SmithSierra Club812 North 3rd StreetPhoenix, AZ 85004

Sanita SouthgateRoute 4, Box 961Flagstaff, AZ 86001

I-18

Ernie E. SpamerAcademy of Nat’l Science1900 Ben Franklin PkwyPhiladelphia, PA 19103

Steve SpauldingPapillon GC HelicoptersP.O. Box 455Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Sam StanderferVice-chairman, TransportationSub-committee293 Anson Smith RoadKingman, AZ 86401

Scott StewartCongressman Bob Stump230 N. 1st Ave.Phoenix, AZ 85025

John StonecipherAir Star HelicoptersP.O. Box 3379Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Mitch StrohmanKAFF Radio - 93 FMP.O. Box 1930Flagstaff, AZ 86002

John SullivanSundance Helicopters265 E. Tropicana Ave., #130Las Vegas, NV 89109

Thomas SunderhandKenai Helicopters1201 SheepmewWilliams, AZ 86046

Jack Thompson - ManagerNat’l Air Trans. Assoc.4226 King St.Alexandria, VA 22314

David ThomsovicUSEPA Regional Admin.Code E-375 Hawthorne StreetSan Francisco, CA 94105

Edward ThoroughgoodPapillon GC HelicoptersP.O. Box 455Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

David TinettiAir Star HelicoptersP.O. Box 3379Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Russ TippettPapillon HelicoptersP.O. Box 455Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Kenneth A. TravousExecutive Director, StateParks Board1300 W. WashingtonPhoenix, AZ 85007

Clarinda VailP.O. Box 1427Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Fred VanhornNPSGlacier Nat’l ParkWest Glacier, MT 59936

Lukas VelushArizona Daily Sun1751 S. Thompson St.Flagstaff, AZ 86001

Mike VerkampVerkamp’s, IncP.O. Box 96Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

I-19

Bob & Lynn VierraGrand Canyon HelicoptersP.O. Box 455Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Phil VoorheesNPCA1776 Mass. Ave. NWWashington, DC 20036

James B WagnerCanyon Air ShuttleP.O. Box 3241Grand Canyon, AZ 86023Bill WagstaffAviation International News214 Franklin Ave.Midland Park, NJ 07432

Roger T WalkerFAA Las Vegas FSDO7181 Amego St.Las Vegas, NV 89119

Norman Wallen3716 N GrandviewFlagstaff, AZ 86001

Jim WaltersNPS - IMSFP.O. Box 728Santa Fe, NM 87504-0278

Ken Walters118 Sherwood LandFlagstaff, AZ 86001

Ronald Warren, Attorney979 Bel Air CircleLas Vegas, NV 89109

Tracy WatsonUSA Today-9News500 Speer Blvd.Denver, CO 80203

Fran WeirFAA Las Vegas FSDO7181 Amego StreetLas Vegas, NV 89119

Barry W. Welch - Acting DirBOIA - Env Qual SvcsP.O. Box 10Phoenix, AZ 85001

Todd S. WelchMtn St Legal Foundation707 - 17th Street #3030Denver, CO 80202-3404

Richard WestonR.W. PhotographyP.O. Box 1878Flagstaff, AZ 86002

John WilkensonKNAZP.O. Box 3360Flagstaff, AS 86003

Tim WilkersonPapillon GC HelicoptersP.O. Box 455Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Christy WilkeyAir Star HelicoptersP.O. Box 3379Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Richard C. Williams - MajorFAA Air Force Rep. ANM-9001601 Lind Ave. SWRenton, WA 98055-4056

Bill WinterUS Fish & Wildlife Svc.2493 Portola RoadVentura, CA 93003

I-20

Hunter WistrandFire Mgmt Off. - Coconino N.F.2323 E GreenlawFlagstaff, AZ 86001

Jennifer YoustP.O. Box 3368Tusayan, AZ 86023

Steve YozwiakArizona Republic200 E. Van Buren St.Phoenix, AZ 85004