[House Report 106-841]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Rept. 106-841
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session Part 1
======================================================================
BACKCOUNTRY LANDING STRIP ACCESS ACT
_______
September 12, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 3661]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 3661) to help ensure general aviation aircraft access to
Federal land and to the airspace over that land, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Backcountry Landing Strip Access
Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds as follows:
(1) The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Agriculture should adopt a nationwide policy for governing
backcountry aviation issues related to the management of
Federal land under the jurisdiction of those Secretaries and
should require regional managers to adhere to that policy.
(2) Aircraft landing strips serve an essential safety role as
emergency landing areas.
(3) Aircraft landing strips provide access to people who
would otherwise be physically unable to enjoy national parks,
national forests, and other Federal lands and serve an
essential purpose in search and rescue, firefighting, forest,
and ecological management, research, and aerial mapping.
SEC. 3. PROCEDURE FOR CONSIDERATION OF ACTIONS AFFECTING AIRCRAFT
LANDING STRIPS.
(a) In General.--Neither the Secretary of the Interior nor the
Secretary of Agriculture shall take any action which would permanently
close or render or declare as unserviceable any aircraft landing strip
located on Federal land under the administrative jurisdiction of either
Secretary unless--
(1) the head of the aviation department of each State in
which the aircraft landing strip is located has approved the
action;
(2) notice of the proposed action and the fact that the
action would permanently close or render or declare as
unserviceable the aircraft landing strip has been published in
the Federal Register;
(3) a 90-day public comment period on the action has been
provided after the publication under paragraph (2); and
(4) any comments received during the comment period provided
under paragraph (3) have been taken into consideration by the
Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture, as
the case may be, and the head of the aviation department of
each State in which the affected aircraft landing strip is
located.
(b) National Policy.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary
of Agriculture shall--
(1) adopt a nationwide policy that is in accordance with this
Act for governing backcountry aviation issues related to the
management of Federal land under the jurisdiction of those
Secretaries; and
(2) require regional managers to adhere to that policy.
(c) Requirements for Policies.--A policy affecting air access to an
aircraft landing strip located on Federal land under the jurisdiction
of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture,
including the policy required by subsection (b), shall not take effect
unless the policy--
(1) states that the Federal Aviation Administration has the
sole authority to control aviation and airspace over the United
States; and
(2) seeks and considers comments from State governments and
the public.
(d) Maintenance of Airstrips.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Agriculture shall consult with--
(A) the head of the aviation department of each State
in which an aircraft landing strip on Federal land
under the jurisdiction of that Secretary is located;
and
(B) other interested parties,
to ensure that such aircraft landing strips are maintained in a
manner that is consistent with the resource values of the
adjacent area.
(2) Cooperative agreements.--The Secretary of the Interior
and the Secretary of Agriculture may enter into cooperative
agreements with interested parties for the maintenance of
aircraft landing strips located on Federal land.
(e) Exchanges or Acquisitions.--Closure or purposeful neglect of any
aircraft landing strip, or any other action which would render any
aircraft landing strip unserviceable, shall not be a condition of any
Federal acquisition of or exchange involving private property upon
which the aircraft landing strip is located.
(f) New Aircraft Landing Strips Not Created.--Nothing in this Act
shall be construed to create or authorize additional aircraft landing
strips.
(g) Permanently Close.--For the purposes of this Act, the term
``permanently close'' means any closure the duration of which is more
than 180 days in any calendar year.
(h) Applicability.--
(1) Aircraft landing strips.--This Act shall apply only to
established aircraft landing strips on Federal lands
administered by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary
of Agriculture that are commonly known and have been or are
consistently used for aircraft landing and departure
activities.
(2) Actions, policies, exchanges, and acquisitions.--
Subsections (a), (c), and (e) shall apply to any action,
policy, exchange, or acquisition, respectively, that is not
final on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(i) FAA Authority Not Affected.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to affect the authority of the Federal Aviation
Administration over aviation or airspace.
purpose of the bill
The purpose of H.R. 3661 is to help ensure general aviation
aircraft access to federal land and to the airspace over that
land.
background and need for legislation
Backcountry aircraft landing strips serve the public in a
variety of ways. Most important is the role they play in public
safety. Backcountry airstrips are utilized in search and rescue
activities and firefighting efforts, as well as provide areas
for disabled aircraft to make emergency landings. These
airstrips also serve general aviation purposes, providing
access to those who would otherwise be physically unable to
recreate on and enjoy public lands. Moreover, backcountry
airstrips are often used in ecological management, research,
and aerial mapping.
Many backcountry airstrips have been closed or rendered
unserviceable by federal agencies responsible for land
management. The closures are frequently done without the
benefit of public comment. This has led to several complaints
by many private pilots who have used these airstrips for a
number of years and desire to see them remain open unless there
is sufficient and valid justification for their closure.
H.R. 3661 addresses this situation by preventing the
Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture from
permanently closing or rendering unserviceable backcountry
airstrips without first consulting with the Administrator of
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the State
aviation department where the landing strip in located. The
proposed closure would also need to be published in the Federal
Register with a 90-day public comment period. H.R. 3661 also
directs the Secretaries to adopt a nationwide policy in
accordance with the bill governing general aviation on federal
lands. H.R. 3661 also directs the Secretaries to consult with
State aviation departments to ensure the airstrips are
maintained in a manner that is consistent with the resource
values of the adjacent area.
During Subcommittee consideration of H.R. 3661, Congressman
James V. Hansen offered an amendment in the nature of a
substitute which was adopted and significantly changed the
bill. The amendment removed the requirements for the Interior
and Agricultural Departments to consult with the FAA,
authorized the Secretaries to enter into cooperative agreements
with interested parties for the maintenance of the airstrips,
and assured that the bill did not authorize the creation of any
additional landing strips.
The amendment also defined airstrips as those identified on
State or FAA aeronautical charts. It became clear, however,
that this definition was inadequate because State and FAA
aeronautical charts did not include many of the backcountry
airstrips that were at issue. Because of this, the Full
Resource Committee adopted an en bloc amendment which, in part,
defined landing strips as those that are commonly known and
consistently used. The Committee wants to make it clear that
this definition is meant to be interpreted as inclusive rather
than exclusive. Many backcountry landing strips covered by this
bill are indicated on either State or FAA aeronautical charts,
but not all of them. Backcountry landing strips not found on
these charts are frequently indicated on other legitimate maps,
for example, on United States Geological Survey Series maps,
United States Forest Service maps, and Bureau of Land
Management maps. Furthermore, backcountry and general aviation
pilots, along with personnel from the federal agencies, are
keenly aware of where landing strips are located and in what
condition they are in. Both the pilots and federal personnel
also are generally aware of how often the landing strips have
been or are used for aircraft landing and departures. Combining
the legitimate maps with the general knowledge of where landing
strips are located, the federal agencies, State aeronautics
boards, and pilots have a clear idea what landing strips are
commonly known and consistently used. The Committee expects
that personnel with the federal government, the State
aeronautics boards, and the pilots complete an inventory in
each State of the relevant landing strips and agree on what
strips this bill will affect.
The Committee makes one other note. The term
``established'' as used in Section 3(h)(1) does not have the
meaning of established by law or regulation. Rather, the term
means that the landing strips are in existence, can be located,
and have been or are being used for aircraft departures and
landings.
committee action
H.R. 3661 was introduced on February 15, 2000, by
Congressman James V. Hansen (R-UT). The bill was referred to
the Committee on Resources, and additionally to the Committee
on Agriculture and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. Within the Resources Committee, the bill was
referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
and the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health. On April 6,
2000, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On May 18,
2000, the Subcommittee met to consider the bill. An amendment
in the nature of substitute was offered by Congressman Hansen,
as described above. Congressman Carlos Romero-Barcelo offered a
substitute amendment to the Hansen amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The Romero-Barcelo amendment failed by voice vote.
The Hansen amendment was then adopted by voice vote. The bill,
as amended, was then ordered favorably reported to the Full
Committee by a roll call vote of 6-5, as follows:
On June 20, 2000, the Resources Committee met to consider
the bill. The Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health was
discharged from further consideration of the bill by unanimous
consent. Congressman Hansen offered an en bloc amendment which
made technical changes, re-titled the bill, and clarified which
landing strips are covered under the bill. The amendment was
adopted by voice vote. Congressman Mark Udall (D-CO) offered an
amendment in the nature of a substitute which required a study
of the issue. The amendment failed on a voice vote. No further
amendments were offered and the bill, as amended, was then
ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by
voice vote.
committee oversight findings and recommendations
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations
are reflected in the body of this report.
constitutional authority statement
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.
compliance with house rule XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B)
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2)
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this
bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in
revenues or tax expenditures.
3. Government Reform Oversight Findings. Under clause
3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee has received no report of
oversight findings and recommendations from the Committee on
Government Reform on this bill.
4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate
for this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 24, 2000.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3661, the
Backcountry Landing Strip Access Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Megan
Carroll.
Sincerely,
Steven Lieberman
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 3661--Backcountry Landing Strip Access Act
Summary: H.R. 3661 would establish new requirements related
to aircraft landing strips on federal lands managed by the
Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior. It would prohibit
the secretaries from closing certain aircraft landing strips
for more than 180 days a year without the approval of the head
of the aviation department of the state in which the landing
strip is located. The bill also would require the secretaries
to maintain those landing strips in consultation with state
aviation departments and other interested parties and would
authorize them to enter into cooperative agreements for that
purpose. Finally, the bill would direct the secretaries to
develop a national policy for managing certain landing strips
under their jurisdiction.
Based on information from the Department of the Interior
(DOI) and the Forest Service, CBO estimates that implementing
this legislation would cost about $59 million over the 2001-
2005 period, assuming the availability of appropriated funds.
H.R. 3661 would not affect direct spending or receipts;
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
H.R. 3661 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would benefit state and local governments by ensuring that
they are consulted about the maintenance and potential closure
of federally owned landing strips. Any costs that such
governments would incur to consult with federal agencies or to
approve the closing of a landing strip would not be
significant.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 3661 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300
(natural resources and environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Estimated authorization level............................. 0 6 10 14 15 15
Estimated outlays......................................... 0 5 10 14 15 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis of estimate: For the purposes of this estimate, CBO
assumes that H.R. 3661 will be enacted by the end of fiscal
year 2000 and that the amounts estimated to be necessary will
be provided at the start of each fiscal year. Estimates of
outlays are based on historical spending patterns for similar
activities.
According to the DOI and the Forest Service, thousands of
aircraft landing strips exist or have existed on federal lands,
and only a portion of them have been identified. Under current
law, only a fraction of those landing strips are maintained
routinely, resulting in a significant backlog of maintenance
projects. Based on information from DOI and the Forest Service,
CBO estimates that the land management agencies currently spend
about $2 million annually to perform some maintenance on
roughly 400 landing strips on federal land.
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3661 would increase
federal costs for two reasons. First, we expect that states and
interested parties would ask federal agencies to maintain
hundreds of landing strips that receive little, if any,
maintenance under current law. Second, we expect that states
would require the agencies to keep some airstrips open for
longer periods of time, which would increase the costs of
maintaining the affected sites.
For this estimate, CBO assumes that the consultation and
planning process outlined in the bill would take about two
years. Thus, the estimated cost in the initial years primarily
reflects added administrative expenses and increased spending
for readily identifiable projects. Once the consultation
process is completed, we estimate that additional maintenance
costs would be $14 million in 2003, and would grow in
subsequent years with inflation. We assume that, under H.R.
3661, the agencies would maintain a total of about 1,400 high-
priority airstrips and that the average annual cost to meet the
new standards would range between $1,000 and $35,000 per
airstrip, averaging about $12,000. We also assume that the
agencies would not spend significant amounts on other, lower-
priority airstrips on federal lands.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 3661
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA, and would benefit state and local governments
by ensuring that they are consulted about the maintenance and
potential closure of federally owned landing strips. Any costs
incurred to consult with federal agencies or to approve the
closing of a landing strip would not be significant.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Megan Carroll; impact
on State, local, and tribal governments: Victoria Heid Hall;
impact on the private sector; Sarah Sitarek.
Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
compliance with public law 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
preemption of state, local or tribal law
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
changes in existing law
If enacted, this bill makes no changes to existing law.
committee correspondence
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC, August 16, 2000.
Hon. Larry Combest,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
Longworth HOB, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On June 20, 2000, the Committee on
Resources ordered favorably reported with amendments H.R. 3661,
the Backcountry Landing Strip Access Act. The bill was referred
primarily to the Committee on Resources, with an additional
referral to the Committee on Agriculture because it affects the
management of small airstrips in national forests by the
Secretary of Agriculture. I have forwarded a copy of the draft
bill report for your review.
The author of the bill, Congressman Hansen, would like to
see it considered on the Floor before we adjourn the 106th
Congress. Knowing that we have only a few weeks at most left, I
ask that you allow the Committee on Agriculture to be
discharged from further consideration of the bill so that it
may be scheduled under suspension of the rules as soon as
possible. This discharge in no way affects your jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the bill and it will not serve as
precedent for future referrals.
Thank you for your consideration of my request and I look
forward to bringing H.R. 3661 to the Floor soon.
Sincerely,
Don Young, Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC, August 18, 2000.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
Longworth HOB, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On June 20, 2000, the Committee on
Resources ordered to be reported H.R. 3661, the Backcountry
Landing Strip Access Act. As you are aware, the Committee on
Agriculture was granted an additional referral of this
legislation because it affects the management of small
airstrips in national forests by the Secretary of Agriculture.
Knowing of your interest in expediting this legislation and
in maintaining the continued consultation between our Committee
on these matters, I agree to discharge H.R. 3661 from
consideration by the Committee on Agriculture. I do so with the
understanding that by discharging the bill the Committee on
Agriculture does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over
this or similar measures. In addition, in the event a
conference with the Senate is requested on this matter, the
Committee on Agriculture reserves the right to seek appointment
of conferees from this Committee, if one should become
necessary.
Thank you very much for your courtesy in this matter and I
look forward to continued cooperation between our Committees as
we deal with these issues in the future.
Sincerely,
Larry Combest, Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC, August 16, 2000.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On June 20, 2000, the Committee on
Resources ordered favorably reported with amendments H.R. 3661,
the Backcountry Landing Strip Access Act. The bill was referred
primarily to the Committee on Resources, with an additional
referral to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
I have forwarded a copy of the draft bill report for your
review.
The author of the bill, Congressman Hansen, would like to
see it considered on the Floor before we adjourn the 106th
Congress. Knowing that we have only a few weeks at most left, I
ask that you allow the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure to be discharged from further consideration of
the bill so that it may be scheduled as soon as possible. This
discharge in no way affects your jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the bill and it will not serve as precedent for
future referrals. If a conference on the measure is convened, I
would support your request to have the Committee on
Transportation represented on that conference. Finally, you
should know that Subcommittee on Aviation Chairman Congressman
Duncan supported the bill during its consideration in the
Resources Committee.
Thank you for your consideration of my request and I look
forward to bringing H.R. 3661 to the Floor soon.
Sincerely,
Don Young, Chairman.
----------
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, September 8, 2000.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
3881, the Backcountry Land Strip Access Act.
I appreciate your strong interests and those of the bill's
sponsor, Congressman Hansen, in moving this important
legislation to the House Floor as soon as possible.
Accordingly, I will support discharging the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure from further consideration of
the bill.
As you know, our Committee has jurisdiction over H.R.
3661's subject matter involving civil aviation. Our Aviation
Subcommittee chaired by Congressman Duncan and your National
Parks Subcommittee chaired by Congressman Hansen held a joint
hearing on this bill in April. As a result of that hearing and
the cooperative efforts of our two staffs, several changes to
the introduced bill have been made that are incorporated in the
version approved by your Committee. As a result, I see no need
for a separate review by the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee.
I appreciate your assurances that a decision to be
discharged from further consideration of the bill should not be
considered as precedent for future referrals of similar
measures or as affecting the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee's subject matter jurisdiction and that you would
support the appointment of conferees from the Committee should
a conference with the Senate become necessary. In addition, I
would appreciate your support for any further clarifications or
revisions that our staff agree might be helpful or necessary
and would appreciate your inclusion of this letter in any Floor
debate accompanying House consideration of H.R. 3661.
I congratulate you for your leadership on H.R. 3661 and
look forward to working with you and your colleagues as the
legislation advances.
Sincerely,
Bud Shuster, Chairman.
DISSENTING VIEWS
We oppose H.R. 3661 because it represents unwise federal
land management policy. According to the Majority, this
legislation is necessary because the National Park Service
(NPS), Forest Service (FS), Fish and Wildlife Service (F&W) and
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) frequently close landing
strips located on federally owned land without public notice.
Bill proponents argue that, because such actions endanger pilot
safety and hamper search and rescue operations, requiring
federal land managers to obtain permission from state aviation
officials before closing a strip is justified.
However, none of the witnesses testifying in support of
this legislation before the National Parks and Public Lands
Subcommittee in April \1\ provided any evidence that such
arbitrary strip closings actually take place. To the contrary,
agency witnesses made clear that established strips can only be
closed after completion of the public process mandated by the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.). The few strip-closure anecdotes offered during the
hearing were completely refuted by agency witness and in most
cases turned out to have taken place on private, not public,
land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mr. Robert Barrett, Director, Utah Department of Transportation
Aeronautical Operations; Mr. Barton Welsh, Aeronautics Administrator,
Division of Aeronautics, Idaho Transportation Department; Mr. Phil
Boyer, President, Aircraft Owners and Pilots' Association; Mr. Steve
Durtchi, President, Utah Backcountry Pilots' Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The real purpose of H.R. 3661 is not to prevent federal
land managers from closing landing strips without notice but to
prevent them from closing landing strips at all. If enacted,
this legislation would provide state aviation officials with a
veto over decisions made by federal land managers regarding
public lands. Even if an agency has completed the public NEPA
process and determined that continued aircraft usage poses a
threat to resource values on federal land, a strip could not be
closed without state permission. These public lands belong to
all of the American people, but H.R. 3661 would allow state
officials to dictate to the federal government when, where and
how private pilots should have access to those lands.
H.R. 3661 also places new and unreasonable requirements on
federal land managers. Not only can NPS, FS, F&W and BLM not
close a strip without state permission, they are also
prohibited from taking any action which would render a strip
``unserviceable.'' While the bill fails to define this term,
one reading of this provision is that federal land managers
must begin performing maintenance on these strips. Of course,
the bill provides no definitions, standards or enforcement
provisions to guide the agencies in this new role. No inventory
of existing strips has ever been created and the agencies are
not assured of any additional funding for this new task. Given
this lack of critical information and resources, the fiscal and
management burdens created by H.R. 3661 will be substantial.
In summary, H.R. 3661 will cede management of federal lands
to state aviation officials while also saddling federal land
managers with undefined and potentially expensive new
responsibilities. Such a step would be a disservice to the
taxpayers to whom these lands and their resources belong. We
join with the Administration and others in opposing this
misguided legislation and urge our colleagues to do likewise.
George Miller.
Neil Abercrombie.
Frank Pallone, Jr.
Eni Faleomavaega.