Coalition Comments On Proposed Air Tour Management Plan and Environmental Assessment for Hawaiʻi Volcanoes National Park

 

June 15, 2023

 

Ms. Rhonda Loh, Superintendent
Hawaiʻi Volcanoes National Park
P.O. Box 52
Hawaii National Park, HI 96718

Subject:  Proposed Air Tour Management Plan and Environmental Assessment for Hawaiʻi Volcanoes National Park

Dear Superintendent Loh:

I am writing on behalf of over 2,400 members of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks (Coalition), all of whom have worked or volunteered for the National Park Service (NPS) and who collectively represent more than 45,000 years of national park management experience. The Coalition studies, educates, speaks, and acts for the preservation of America’s National Park System. Among our members are former NPS directors, regional directors, superintendents, resource specialists, rangers, maintenance and administrative staff, and a full array of other former employees, volunteers, and supporters.

We offer the following comments for your consideration regarding the proposed Air Tour Management Plan (ATMP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) for Hawaiʻi Volcanoes National Park (HAVO or Park).

GENERAL COMMENTS

 

2. First, we commend the agencies for preparing a proper environmental assessment (EA) for the proposed ATMP that considers a range of alternatives and evaluates the potential impacts of those alternatives – When considering a proposed agency action, such as a new ATMP, NPS must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and related guidance, including the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA implementing regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and with the agency’s own NEPA guidance found in the NPS NEPA Handbook 2015. We have been deeply concerned that NPS has failed to comply with basic NEPA guidance by issuing numerous previous “proposed ATMPs” for other parks without considering a reasonable range of alternatives and without preparing any sort of environmental impact analysis for public review. We applaud you and the planning team for following the appropriate NEPA process requirements that the HAVO ATMP proposal deserves. 
3. Compliance with the NPS Organic Act (54 USC §100101) is integral to compliance with the National Parks Air Tour Management Act (49 USC §40128), yet the EA barely mentions the Organic Act or its relevance – Section 802 (Findings) of the National Parks Air Tour Management Act (NPATMA) states, in part: “Congress finds that—

(1) the Federal Aviation Administration has sole authority to control airspace over the United States; 

(2) the Federal Aviation Administration has the authority to preserve, protect, and enhance the environment by minimizing, mitigating, or preventing the adverse effects of aircraft overflights on public and tribal lands; 

(3) the National Park Service has the responsibility of conserving the scenery and natural and historic objects and wildlife in national parks and of providing for the enjoyment of the national parks in ways that leave the national parks unimpaired for future generations[.]” (Emphasis added)

The NPS “responsibility for conserving” park resources and values mentioned in NPATMA §802(3) above derives directly from the NPS Organic Act and is often referred to as the NPS “conservation mandate.” As described in NPS Management Policies 2006, Section 1.4.1: “The most important statutory directive for the National Park Service is provided by interrelated provisions of the NPS Organic Act of 1916 and the NPS General Authorities Act of 1970, including amendments to the latter law enacted in 1978.” As further stated in Management Policies Section 1.4.3:

The fundamental purpose of the national park system, established by the Organic Act and reaffirmed by the General Authorities Act, as amended, begins with a mandate to conserve park resources and values. This mandate is independent of the separate prohibition on impairment and applies all the time with respect to all park resources and values, even when there is no risk that any park resources or values may be impaired… Congress, recognizing that the enjoyment by future generations of the national parks can be ensured only if the superb quality of park resources and values is left unimpaired, has provided that when there is a conflict between conserving resources and values and providing for enjoyment of them, conservation is to be predominant. This is how courts have consistently interpreted the Organic Act. (Emphasis added)

Given that both the proposed ATMP and EA are or should be focused on reducing potential impacts of commercial air tours on the Park’s natural and cultural resources, and visitor experiences, we would expect the NPS conservation mandate to serve as a key basis for evaluating those impacts. However, we are quite concerned that the EA barely mentions the Organic Act (e.g., it is mentioned in regard to cultural resources on EA p. 80). In our view, the NPS conservation mandate is so important to the management of air tours in national parks that Congress chose to embed a key portion of the Organic Act in §802(3) of the NPATMA. To address this concern, we recommend that a section summarizing applicable laws relevant to the proposed action, including the NPS Organic Act, be added to Chapter 1 or as an appendix.

3. The EA appropriately considers the 2017 Foundation Document for Hawaiʻi Volcanoes National Park, which provides important context for the planning process regarding the Park’s significance and the Fundamental Resources and Values that could be adversely affected by commercial air tours – As described in the document: “The purpose of Hawaiʻi Volcanoes National Park is to protect, study, and provide access to Kīlauea and Mauna Loa, two of the world’s most active volcanoes, and perpetuate endemic Hawaiian ecosystems and the traditional Hawaiian culture connected to these landscapes[.]”

The document identifies “Fundamental Resources and Values” that help focus planning and management efforts on what is truly significant about the Park. Fundamental Resources and Values are “those qualities that are essential (fundamental) to achieving the purpose of the Park and maintaining its significance.” (Emphasis added) HAVO’s Fundamental Resources and Values identified in the Foundation Document, which are potentially impacted by air tours, include:

• Natural Sounds. Park soundscapes are protected from many human-caused sounds and are dominated by the sounds of wind, ocean, volcanic activity, and native species.
• Wahi Kapu (Sacred Places) and Wahi Pana (Celebrated Places). The entire park landscape and all of its inhabitants and features, including the sky as a layered extension of the landscape, are sacred to Native Hawaiians[.]
• Opportunity for Traditional Cultural Use. Native Hawaiian traditional uses in the park perpetuate traditional practices, knowledge, and the cultural importance of this area. These practices, including chants and dances, depend upon natural sounds, unobstructed views of mountain summits, and an environment that has not been greatly altered by human-caused changes.

The cultural and spiritual importance of the Hawaiʻi Volcanoes landscape to Native Hawaiians cannot be overstated. Kīlauea Volcano, the home of Pelehonuamea, and Mauna Loa Volcano are sacred to many Native Hawaiians. The Park is a place of birth and the physical representation of many spirits and forces; the active volcanism, the features of the terrain, and the plants and animals that live there are all important to the Native Hawaiian sense of identity, unity, and continuance. The journeys of the Hawaiian people, and those who followed, portray cultural clashes, adaptations, and assimilations that provide enduring lessons about human resourcefulness, interdependence, and respect on an active volcanic landscape. As a result, the sacred nature of the Park’s landscape to Native Hawaiians provides one of the, if not the most, compelling reasons to eliminate air tours at HAVO.

4. Consistent with NPS Management Policies Section 1.5, the EA should include an “appropriate use analysis” for the proposed action – Management Policies Section 1.5 states, in part: “An ‘appropriate use’ is a use that is suitable, proper, or fitting for a particular park, or to a particular location within a park. Not all uses are appropriate or allowable in units of the national park system, and what is appropriate may vary from one park to another and from one location to another within a park…When proposed park uses and the protection of park resources and values come into conflict, the protection of resources and values must be predominant. A new form of park use may be allowed within a park only after a determination has been made in the professional judgment of the superintendent that it will not result in unacceptable impacts.” (Emphasis added)

The NPATMA established procedural requirements for allowing air tours over parks; however, the Act does NOT mandate that commercial air tours are appropriate and must be allowed. In fact, section (b)(3)(A) of the Act provides that the agencies “may prohibit commercial air tour operations over a national park in whole or in part.” Under the Act, air tours are essentially a discretionary activity subject to agency approval. As far as we know, NPS has never formally considered or determined whether commercial air tours are an appropriate use of (or over) HAVO. As a result, we strongly recommend that the EA be amended (e.g., through errata or as an appendix) to include an appropriate use analysis as described in Management Policies Section 1.5.

5. The eventual decision document for the ATMP should include an “impairment determination” for the selected action – NPS Management Policies Section 1.4.7, states, in part: “Before approving a proposed action that could lead to an impairment of park resources and values, an NPS decision-maker must consider the impacts of the proposed action and determine, in writing, that the activity will not lead to an impairment of park resources and values. If there would be an impairment, the action must not be approved.” (Emphasis added) Furthermore, “[t]he impact threshold at which impairment occurs is not always readily apparent. Therefore, the Service will apply a standard that offers greater assurance that impairment will not occur. The Service will do this by avoiding impacts that it determines to be unacceptable. These are impacts that fall short of impairment, but are still not acceptable within a particular park’s environment.” (Emphasis added) As a result, we strongly recommend that the eventual decision document, presumably a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), includes an impairment determination as described in Management Policies Section 1.4.7.

6. Section 9.0 (“Amendment”) of the ATMP itself should be revised – We have a significant concern about Section 9.0 in the proposed ATMP. This section of the ATMP is not described in the EA. The very first sentence in Section 9.0 (ATMP p. 14) states that “the ATMP may be amended at any time” (emphasis added) if either NPS or the FAA notifies the other agency. We imagine that the Amendment clause is intended to convey the concept that the ATMP could be updated and revised if/when the agencies determine it is needed and appropriate; and we fully understand that all management plans are subject to future change.

However, the use of the words “at any time” creates the distinct impression that reversal of the ATMP decision and/or resumption/expansion of air tours at HAVO could happen on short-notice (i.e., “at any time”). This wording also suggests there is little certainty that the significant reduction of air tours proposed at HAVO would be a durable decision (since it could be changed “at any time”). In our view, creating such uncertainty in the ATMP unnecessarily invites industry appeals and/or political intervention on behalf of air tour operators. Our observation has been that many NPS management decisions that curtail or eliminate controversial recreational and commercial activities in parks, such as off-road vehicle (ORV)  use, hunting, and in this case commercial air tours, are often subject to industry lobbying and/or political reversal, especially if/when there is a change in administration.

Over 20 years after the passage of the NPATMA, litigation was needed to force the agencies to finally prepare the required ATMPs. Moving forward, it is critical that the new ATMPs are widely viewed as providing for consistent long-term air tour management at the individual parks involved, rather than creating the distinct impression of uncertainty about their longevity. Toward that end, we recommend that the agencies revise the wording of Section 9.0 of the ATMP itself to state the following:

(add new first sentence) This ATMP will remain in effect until amended or terminated by mutual agreement of the agencies. This ATMP may be amended at any time (i.e., delete: “at any time”): if the NPS, by notification to the FAA and the operator(s), determines that the ATMP is not adequately protecting Park resources and/or visitor enjoyment; if the FAA, by notification to the NPS and the operator(s), determines that the ATMP is adversely affecting aviation safety and/or the national aviation system; or, if the agencies determine that appropriate changes to this ATMP are necessary to address new information or changed circumstances.

These minor revisions would affirm the intended stability and longevity of the ATMP; and refocus the Amendment provision on the limited circumstances that could justify reconsideration of the ATMP, rather than on the potential timing or abruptness of amending the ATMP.

SECTION-BY-SECTION COMMENTS

Chapter 1 

1. Section 1.1 Introduction – The third paragraph of this section describes the “objective” of ATMP under the NPATMA, as follows: “The objective of the ATMP, under the Act, is to develop acceptable and effective measures to mitigate or prevent significant adverse impacts, if any, of commercial air tour operations on the Park’s natural and cultural resources, Native Hawaiian sacred sites and ceremonial areas, Wilderness character, and visitor experience.” (Emphasis added) Of concern (again), the NPS Organic Act’s “fundamental purpose of parks” statement (54 U.S.C §100101(a)) provides the legal basis for conserving the above mentioned park resources and values, yet there is no mention of the Organic Act in this section of the EA or in the ATMP itself. As described in General Comment # 2 above, compliance with the Organic Act’s conservation mandate is integral to compliance with §802(3) of the NPATMA. To address this concern, we recommend that a new section summarizing applicable laws relevant to the proposed action, including the NPS Organic Act and the HAVO enabling legislation be added to Chapter 1 or as an appendix. Or, at the very least, this section should include a sentence stating that “Conservation of park resources and values is a fundamental purpose of units of the National Park System as described in the NPS Organic Act (54 U.S.C §100101(a)).”

2. Section 1.4 Purpose and Need – A stated in this section, “The purpose of the ATMP is to comply with the Act and other applicable laws…” (Emphasis added) Similar to our previous comment, this would seem to be the perfect opportunity to identify the “other applicable” laws, such as the NPS Organic Act, that the agencies considered or should have considered during the development of the ATMP. By not identifying any other “applicable laws,” it leaves the impression that the agencies have not consciously considered the proposed action within the context of the Organic Act’s conservation mandate. This should be addressed by providing a brief summary of “other applicable laws” in Chapter 1 or as an appendix to the EA.

3. Section 1.5 Environmental Impact Categories Not Analyzed in Detail – As described in this section of the EA, the agencies have appropriately identified a number of impact categories that were considered but not analyzed in detail. In our view, the dismissed categories are generally not relevant or significant to the analysis; and the impact categories that have been carried forward for detailed analysis in the EA include the most relevant or significant impact topics for the analysis that follows in Chapter 3 of the EA.

Chapter 2

1. Section 2.1 Alternatives Development – We greatly appreciate the detailed description of how the ATMP preliminary alternatives were developed primarily by an NPS inter-disciplinary team and then reviewed by the FAA. We also appreciate the detailed references to the Park’s Foundation Document purposes and management objectives, which helped inform development of the alternatives. In general, we believe that the agencies have developed and considered an appropriate range of alternatives. It also is very appropriate that the alternative of “Air Tours Above Existing Levels or Air Tours at Existing Levels with Current Operating Parameters” has been eliminated from further study for the reasons stated in Section 2.2.1.

2. Section 2.4 Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) – As described in this section, “[t]he No Action Alternative represents a continuation of what is currently flown under existing conditions…” We strongly agree with the statement that “[t]he No Action Alternative… is not a selectable alternative because it does not meet the purpose and need for the ATMP (refer to Section 1.4, Purpose and Need).” (Emphasis added) It is highly evident from the impact analysis of the No Action Alternative in Chapter 3 that the existing level of air tours at HAVO is causing unacceptable impacts to park resources and values that NPS is mandated to conserve unimpaired under the NPS Organic Act.

3. Section 2.5 Alternative 2 (Elimination of Air Tours) – As described, “Alternative 2 would provide the greatest level of protection for the purposes, resources, and values of the Park because it would not authorize air tours in the ATMP planning area. Under this alternative, the heart of the Park, including the summit of Kīlauea, all Wilderness areas, and cultural and visitor use areas, would be free of commercial air tours. Alternative 2 would prohibit commercial air tours within the ATMP planning area no later than 180 days after the ATMP is signed by all required signatories from both agencies (the ATMP’s effective date)… Air tours outside of the ATMP planning area (i.e., at or above 5,000 ft. AGL or more than ½-mile outside the Park boundary) are not subject to the Act and are therefore not regulated under the ATMP. Thus, there would be no limitations on the number of air tours that could occur outside the ATMP planning area.” (Emphasis added)

Alternative 2 (i.e., elimination of air tours at HAVO) would clearly provide “the greatest level of protection for the purposes, resources, and values of the Park.” Given the cultural, biological and Wilderness significance of HAVO, we believe that elimination of air tours should have been identified as the Preferred Alternative for this ATMP. It is the alternative that is most consistent with NPS Management Policies Section 1.4.3, which states: “[W]hen there is a conflict between conserving resources and values and providing for enjoyment of them, conservation is to be predominant.”

4. Section 2.6 Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) – As described in the EA, Alternative 3 would reduce the number of air tours over the Park from 11,376 (three-year average) to 1,565, an 86% reduction. It would also limit all air tours to the following three designated routes:

1. Pu‘u‘ō‘ō Route: The Pu‘u‘ō‘ō Route consists of a route on the east rift of Kīlauea in the Pu‘u‘ō‘ō area with a single entry and exit over the ocean.
2. Coastal Route: The Coastal Route runs bi-directionally offshore along the edge of the Park boundary, but within ½-mile of the Park boundary. Air tours on the Coastal Route would maintain 2,000 ft. lateral distance from shore and a minimum altitude of 2,000 ft. AGL.
3. Kahuku Route: The Kahuku Route runs bi-directionally across the south side of the Kahuku Unit following Highway 11. Air tours on the Kahuku Route would maintain a minimum altitude of 1,500 ft. AGL. This route would provide access for Kailua-Kona flights and circle island tours to provide expansive views of Mauna Loa.

 

Based on the designated routes above, the heart of the Park, including the summit of Kīlauea, designated Wilderness areas, and key cultural and visitor use areas, would generally be free of commercial air tours. In comparison to the No Action Alternative, Alternative 3 would significantly reduce how much of the Park would be impacted by air tour noise by restricting flights to 3 designated routes and by limiting the number of flights per day. The Puʻuʻōʻō and the Kahuku air tour routes, in particular, would reduce impacts on the Park’s resources and values. Importantly, the Halemaʻuma‘u Crater is protected, enhancing cultural and natural resource protections and visitor experience.

The Coastal Route, however, will continue to result in substantial impacts on both cultural and natural resources and on recreational activities. Importantly, the EA does not take into full account the concerns of Native Hawaiians who consider the entire Park as sacred. Their voices were not heard especially regarding the Coastal Route which includes many ceremonial areas, sacred sites and fishing grounds. In addition, along the Coastal Route are the primary nesting areas of endangered sea turtles, and where important wilderness hiking and camping sites occur to Halapē and up the Hilina Pali to over 3,300 ft. elevation. Air tour flights at 1,500-2,000 ft. over the Coastal Route would be visible below by those who hike to the top of the Hilina Pali. Alternative 3 would also adversely affect Wilderness qualities in some native forest bird habitat where rare honeycreeper, ‘I‘iwi, occur, and in locations where endangered nēnē (Hawaiian goose) occur.

In brief, although Alternative 3 represents a significant improvement in resource protection over the No Action Alternative, it would still result in significantly more adverse impacts than Alternative 2. For this reason, we strongly support the selection of Alternative 2, the elimination of air tours at HAVO.

5. Section 2.7 Summary of ATMP Alternatives – Table 3 provides a side-by-side comparison of various Alternative Attributes for Alternatives 1-3. We call your attention to the “Monitoring and Enforcement” attribute on p. 27 of the EA. As described in the table, monitoring associated with Alternative 3 would focus primarily on documenting flight numbers and locations. There is no mention of resource monitoring to document ongoing impacts to natural and cultural resources that would undoubtedly continue to be adversely affected by air tour noise disturbance along the designated route corridors.

The lack of a resource monitoring plan is an obvious and significant flaw in the proposed action. If NPS decides to allow air tours to continue at HAVO, we strongly recommend that NPS develop and include a monitoring plan that would systematically and periodically assesses the impacts of air tour noise on wildlife, Wilderness character, Native Hawaiian cultural sites and fishing grounds, and recreational activities in general. Such information will be essential for evaluating the effectiveness of the ATMP over time and for informing future amendments of it.

Chapter 3

Chapter 3 includes comparative analyses of the respective alternatives on various impact categories (i.e., resources or uses affected by air tours) at HAVO. Nearly every analysis indicates that Alternative 2, the elimination of air tours at HAVO, would provide the greatest level of protection and/or restoration of resources at the Park. Our comments below are focused on the impact categories that we believe would receive the most significant benefits of significantly reducing or eliminating air tours at the Park.

 

1. Section 3.1 Noise and Noise-Compatible Land Use – This section includes appropriate references to relevant FAA and NPS policies. Specifically, FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 11-5.b(10) defines a noise sensitive area as “[a]n area where noise interferes with normal activities associated with its use. Normally, noise sensitive areas include residential, educational, health, religious structures and sites, parks, recreational areas, areas with Wilderness characteristics, wildlife refuges, and cultural and historical sites.” (Emphasis added) In other words, the entirety of HAVO is a noise sensitive area and should be protected accordingly.

NPS Management Policies (2006) Section 4.9, Soundscape Management, directs the NPS to preserve soundscapes and the acoustic environment to the greatest extent possible and to restore these resources to their natural condition wherever they have become degraded by noise and unwanted sounds. In other words, NPS management polices direct NPS to restore the natural soundscape at HAVO that has been adversely impacted by air tour noise.

 

In addition, the HAVO Foundation Document identifies natural sounds as a Fundamental Resource and Value of the Park. The natural soundscape is a highly desired value for park visitors as well as for Native Hawaiians who consider the Park to be a sacred place; and low ambient sounds plays a vital role in the health of HAVO’s natural ecosystems.

Section 3.1’s comparative analysis of the noise levels likely to be caused by the respective alternatives strongly supports Alternative 2 as the alternative with the greatest likelihood of restoring the natural soundscape at HAVO, consistent with FAA Order 1050.1F and NPS Management Polices Section 4.9. Under Alternative 1 (No Action), 82% of the Park would continue to experience audible air tour noise. Alternative 2 (elimination of air tours) would provide 365 days per year without noise from air tours within the ATMP planning area and would reduce noise in the most noise sensitive regions of the Park resulting in direct beneficial effects compared to the No Action Alternative and Alternative 3. Under Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative), on “Standard Days” (see Table 6), 18% of the Park would experience audible air tour noise for at least 60 minutes a day (non-contiguous). And on “Quiet Technology-Only Days” (see Table 7), 9% of the Park would experience audible air tour noise for at least 60 minutes a day (non-contiguous). Because Alternative 2 would clearly result in the greatest reduction of air tour noise, we support the elimination of air tours at HAVO.

2. Section 3.3 Biological Resources – This section includes analyses of the potential impacts of air tours on biological resources, specifically mammals, reptiles and birds, including multiple species that are federally listed as threatened or endangered. As described in the analysis, multiple protected bird, mammal, and reptile species within the TAMP planning area that are adversely impacted by aircraft noise. Alternative 2 (elimination of air tours) would provide the greatest level of protection to these biological resources and would likely “have no effect on federally listed threatened or endangered species.” See EA Appendix H. For this reason, we fully support selection and implementation of Alternative 2. In contrast, the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 3) provides a lower level of protection in that it may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect federally listed threatened or endangered species, nor would it result in the destruction or adverse modification of federally designated critical habitat.

3. Section 3.4 3.4 Cultural Resources – The National Historic Preservation ACT (NHPA), 54 U.S.C. §§ 300101 et seq., is comprehensive federal preservation legislation intended to protect cultural resources. Section 106 of the NHPA (54 U.S.C. § 306108), as implemented in 36 CFR Part 800, requires federal agencies to consider the effects of undertakings on historic properties, should any such properties exist. In addition to Section 106 of the NHPA, the NPS’s Organic Act* and Section 110 of the NHPA apply to and provide for the preservation of historic, ethnographic and cultural resources on parkland. (*EA p. 80 is a rare instance in which the EA actually mentions the NPS Organic Act.)

The EA, Table 10, identifies 43 cultural resources within the Area of Potential Effect (APE), including historic, architectural, archaeological, and cultural resources, inclusive of ethnographic resources, traditional cultural properties (TCPs), sacred sites, cultural landscapes, historic districts, and prehistoric and historic buildings and structures. It is noteworthy that the entire Park is considered a TCP because of its associations with the cultural practices, traditions, beliefs, lifeways, arts, crafts, or social institutions of Native Hawaiians. Commercial air tours, by their nature, have the potential to impact resources for which feeling and setting are contributing elements.

Under Alternative 2, the elimination of commercial air tours from the ATMP planning area would significantly reduce the noise and visual intrusions from directly impacting the feeling and setting of cultural resources within the APE and result in the greatest beneficial impacts to ethnographic resources and sacred sites, TCPs, archaeological resources, cultural landscapes, historic districts, and prehistoric and historic buildings and structures compared to current conditions. Indirect noise impacts may still occur due to air tours displaced to outside the ATMP planning area.

Compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 3 (the NPS Preferred Alternative) would reduce noise and visual intrusions over most, but not all, cultural resources in the APE by reducing the total number of air tour flights allowed and by restricting tours to designated flight routes. However, portions of the Hawaiʻi Volcanoes National Park TCP over part of the Puna-Ka‘ū Historic District, over the edge of the Kahuku-Pōhue Parcel Archaeological Sites, and over the Kahuku Ranch Cultural Landscape would continue to experience air tour noise impacts.

Because the elimination of air tours would provide the greatest level of protection for the diverse cultural resources within the APE and the greater Hawaiʻi Volcanoes landscape that Native Hawaiians consider sacred, we fully support the selection and implementation of Alternative 2. It would be the most appropriate alternative to implement under applicable NHPA, FAA, and NPS cultural resource guidelines and policies.

4. Section 3.5 Wilderness – The Wilderness Act of 1964 is the primary federal legislation regulating the management of designated Wilderness areas. While Wilderness is not an impact category the FAA traditionally examines, the NPS has agency wide (see NPS Management Policies (2006), Chapter 6, and Director’s Order 41, 2013) and park specific guidelines (NPS, 2015) for managing designated Wilderness areas within the National Park System. HAVO has four distinct sections of designated Wilderness that are informally considered “units” because they vary in characteristics such as vegetation, elevation, location, and climate. These four units, the Mauna Loa, Ka‘ū Desert, East Rift, and ‘Ōla‘a, collectively span approximately 123,100 acres of the park’s 354,461 acres.

The NPS manages the Wilderness for the following qualities of Wilderness character:

• Untrammeled: Unhindered and free from the actions of modern human control or manipulation. Natural: Ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of modern civilization.
• Undeveloped: Retaining primeval character and influence without permanent improvements or modern human occupation.
• Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation: Ability to provide outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined type of recreation.
• Other features of value: Wilderness preserves other features of value that are of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

Air tours would have no direct effect on the “untrammeled” and undeveloped” qualities of the four Wilderness units at HAVO; while potential impacts to “other features” (e.g., cultural resources) are evaluated elsewhere in the EA. As a result, the EA analysis focuses on potential impacts to the “natural” and “solitude” qualities of Wilderness character. Because natural sound is such an integral part of Wilderness character, the NPS considers noise above 35 dBA to negatively impact Wilderness character.

 

Under Alternative 2, commercial air tour aircraft would not fly within the ATMP planning area, which would offer the greatest protection to Wilderness character. Alternative 3 would not allow air tours to be conducted directly over any of the designated, eligible, or potential Wilderness within the ATMP planning area. Compared to current conditions, this would enhance qualities of Wilderness character by reducing the intensity noise, the footprint of noise, and the number of noise events over Wilderness areas, although some noise would still be present. Under Alternative 3, noise above 35 dBA would occur for less than 15 minutes a day in the Great Crack, East Rift, and Ka‘ū Desert Wilderness units, while the majority of the Wilderness areas within the Wilderness study area would not experience impacts to the natural quality of Wilderness, as noise above 35 dBA would not occur. While Alternative 3 would provide significant improvement (i.e., reduction in air tour noise) over existing conditions, it would still allow for considerably more cumulative noise impacts than Alternative 2. As a result, we strongly support Alternative 2 as the most appropriate alternative to implement under applicable NPS Wilderness stewardship policies.

5. Section 3.6 Visitor Use and Experience and Other Recreational Opportunities – While visitor experience is not an impact category the FAA traditionally examines, the NPS has agency wide (NPS Management Policies § 8.2, 2006) for managing visitors within the National Park System. This section of the EA also examines impacts to air tour customers.

As described in the EA, from 2017-2019, the Park welcomed an average of 1.5 million visitors per year. Due to the equable climate year-round, Park visitation is fairly evenly distributed throughout the year, with slightly higher visitation in July, August, and particularly December. Most park visitation is for day-use, with visitors typically entering the Park between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM and visiting just the Kīlauea caldera area. In 2017, an estimated 82,600 people took commercial air tours of the Park, which equates to approximately 4% of the over two million visitors that same year.

Under Alternative 2, commercial air tours would not fly within the ATMP planning area which would eliminate this source of noise from the ATMP planning area. Therefore, Alternative 2 offers the greatest protection of visitor use and experience. However, elimination of air tours would be an adverse effect on those seeking that experience within the ATMP planning area.

Alternative 3 would permit air tours to be conducted along designated routes and altitudes (see EA Figure 20). The authorized routes avoid flying directly over or close to areas of the Park that have the highest amount of visitor use, including those near the Kīlauea caldera, which would promote hearing the natural sounds, including of lava, by park visitors. However, the Noise Technical Analysis indicates that Alternative 3 would not meet the Park’s acoustic-based visitor use standards for two modeled location points in the transitional zone and three points in the wild/primitive zone. Other modeled location points would be in compliance with the standard, which represents an improvement compared to the No Action Alternative. Alternative 3 would limit the availability of air tours for those who wish to view the Park from an aerial vantage point to no more than 1,565 tours per year.

Noise is undisputably one of the most significant adverse impacts of air tours over parks. It is clear from the Noise Technical Analysis that Alternative 2 would provide the greatest level of protection from (i.e., the greatest level of reduction of) air tour noise that significantly impacts visitor use and experience at the current level of air tours at HAVO. While Alternative 3 would provide significant improvement (i.e., reduction in air tour noise) over existing conditions, how is it acceptable that the positive experience provided by an air tour for several people per flight is allowed to adversely impact the experiences of hundreds of park visitors on the ground? Continued air tours under Alternative 3 would still allow for considerably more cumulative noise impacts than Alternative 2. For this reason, we support the selection and implementation of Alternative 2.

6. Section 3.8 Visual Effects – As described in this section, visual resources include buildings, sites, TCPs, and other natural or manmade landscape features that are visually important or have unique characteristics. Visual character refers to the overall visual makeup of the existing environment where the alternatives would be located. Within the Park, visual resources can be related to the Park’s geologic features, including lava flows, craters, coastal areas, mountains, and other natural scenic areas, such as forests, coastal plains, and grasslands, and are often tied to visitor use and ethnographic resources. One such viewshed is the historic Crater Rim Drive, the most visited corridor in the park that provides access to a number of unique volcanic, scenic, and cultural features such as Nāhuku lava tube, Uēkahuna, Kīlauea Visitor Center, and Steam Vents. A major attraction for visiting HAVO is to experience the natural scenery and landscape of the park. In addition, as approximately 123,100 acres of the Park are federally designated Wilderness, the natural areas and features provide an aesthetic and visual character unique to HAVO that is free from visual evidence of human civilization.

Studies indicate that aircraft noise in national parks can impact human perceptions of aesthetic quality of viewsheds (Weinzimmer et al., 2014; Benfield et al., 2018). Visitors may notice aircraft overflights because of the accompanying noise. Impacts to visual resources and visual character relate to a decrease in the aesthetic quality of the Park resulting from air tours. In general, commercial air tours detract from the visitor’s opportunity to observe these resources when commercial air tours are present. Reporting data from 2017-2019 indicates that visitors have the potential, on average, to see commercial air tour aircraft approximately 31 times per day, and the maximum number of tours reported over the Park during this time period was 90 tours a day.

Under Alternative 2, commercial air tour aircraft would not fly within the ATMP planning area so commercial air tours in this area would not detract from visual resources in the visual effects study area. Visual character would improve significantly compared to current conditions; and Alternative 2 would provide the greatest protection to Park viewsheds across the three alternatives.

Under Alternative 3, some Park viewsheds would continue to experience temporary impacts when commercial air tours are flying within the visual effects study area, and those instances would be generally limited to viewsheds where aircraft could be seen along the designated routes and altitudes (see Figure 24). This would be limited to no more than 1,565 instances per year, an 86% reduction compared to the No Action Alternative.

In sum, although Alternative 3 would reduce impacts to visual resources compared to the No Action Alternative, it would still allow greater adverse impacts than Alternative 2. The elimination of air tours would provide the greatest level of protection to the Park’s visual resources; and for this reason, we strongly support the selection and implementation of Alternative 2 at HAVO.

7. Section 3.11 Summary of Environmental Consequences – Table 16 provides a side-by-side comparison of the environmental consequences for each of the alternatives considered across each environmental impact category. This comparison provides overwhelming evidence that Alternative 2, elimination of air tours, would provide the greatest level of protection to or within the various impact categories analyzed in the EA. For this reason, we strongly support selection and implementation of Alternative 2, the elimination of air tours at HAVO.

CLOSING COMMENT

In closing, we commend the agencies for preparing a proper EA that evaluates the potential impacts of a range of air tour alternatives at Hawaiʻi Volcanoes National Park. The information and analysis provided in the EA provide overwhelming evidence that Alternative 2, elimination of air tours, is the most appropriate alternative to implement. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important issue.

Sincerely,

 

 

Michael B. Murray, Chair
Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks
2 Massachusetts Ave NE, Unit 77436
Washington, DC 20013

 

cc:
William Schott, Acting Director of Regions 9, 10 and 12, National Park Service
Ray Sauvajot, Associate Director for Natural Resource Stewardship and Science, NPS
Karen Trevino, Chief, Natural Sounds and Night Skies Division, National Park Service