[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 57 (Wednesday, May 8, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4054-S4056]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  RAISING EPA TO CABINET-LEVEL STATUS

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, in recent years, some of my colleagues have 
opposed elevating the Environmental Protection Agency to Cabinet-level 
status. You and I have argued that the protection of our public health 
and environment, EPA's mandate, is as important as the congressional 
mandates which guide other Cabinet-level agencies. If the EPA enjoyed 
the same status as the Department of Energy or the Interior Department, 
maybe EPA's policies would carry the day occasionally.
  As things stand, EPA is certainly losing the battle within this 
administration from clean air to climate change to snowmobiles in our 
national parks. EPA's views are overridden, undervalued, and watered 
down.
  Take the issue of snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National 
Parks. I have spoken about these issues before. I have offered 
amendments that have been adopted in this regard. Snowmobiling in 
Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton National Park has become 
popular in recent years; so popular, in fact, that the activities 
overwhelm the parks, its employees, and its wildlife.
  Up to 1,000 snowmobilers enter the Yellowstone Park on winter 
weekends, most of them through the gateway community of West 
Yellowstone, MT. On steel cold days, a visible haze hangs over the 
park's gate and surrounding area. Rangers at this park wore Park 
Service-issued respirators this winter because the air quality had been 
so degraded by emissions from snowmobile engines.
  I repeat, park rangers at Yellowstone National Park wore respirators 
because the air was so bad because of snowmobiles. These respirators 
were issued by the Park Service.
  What have we come to when rangers have to wear a respirator in our 
national parks? At the very least, it is an embarrassment. I think it 
is a tragedy.

  EPA, the protector of the air we breathe, wisely advocated banning 
snowmobiles due to their air quality impacts, but those were not the 
only impacts EPA raised. Snowmobiles also

[[Page S4055]]

stress Yellowstone's wildlife. The noise generated by so many 
snowmobiles, coupled with the vehicle's capacity to reach speeds of up 
to 90 miles an hour, force the park's wildlife, to say the least, to 
expend valuable energy to avoid contact with these snowmobilers.
  The National Park Service studied the snowmobiles' impact on the 
parks for the better part of 10 years, receiving hundreds of thousands 
of public comments on this subject. The comment included those from the 
EPA. As I have said, EPA recommended a ban based on air quality 
concerns.
  In November of 2000, the Park Service ordered the snowmobiles be 
gradually phased out in Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton 
National Park and the 8-mile road connecting the two.
  By the year 2004, snowmobiles would be banned completely from these 
parks. With so many proconservation Clinton-era policies, the Bush 
administration balked at implementing this rule. With the snowmobile 
industry in mind, rather than the millions of Americans who visit our 
parks, the White House ordered the Park Service to restudy the impact 
of snowmobiles on park resources.
  The writing was on the wall that this administration expected the 
Park Service to reach a different conclusion when it reexamined the 
data. Perhaps they hoped the evidence would support the position they 
favored, some sort of a faith-based approach to science.
  As part of the new review, EPA had the integrity and the courage to 
stick to the position it held throughout the history of this debate. I 
commend Governor Whitman for that.
  In its public comments, EPA repeated the assertion from 3 years ago 
that banning snowmobiles is the best available protection for air 
quality and health of workers and visitors alike. EPA said even a 
limited number of snowmobiles may violate air quality standards.
  I ask unanimous consent that the comments of the Environmental 
Protection Agency to the Assistant Superintendent at Grand Teton 
National Park setting out their position be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          Environmental Protection


                                          Agency, Region VIII,

                                       Denver, CO, April 23, 2002.
     Re Draft supplemental EIS for winter use CEQ #020130.

     Steven F. Iobst,
     Assistant Superintendent, Grand Teton National Park, Moose, 
         WY.
       Dear Mr. Iobst: As a Cooperating Agency in the Supplemental 
     Winter Use Planning Process, and in accordance with our 
     responsibilities under the corresponding Memorandum of 
     Agreement with the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Draft 
     Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for 
     Winter Use Plans at Yellowstone and Grand Teton National 
     Parks and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway (the 
     Parks). We provide the following comments to assist NPS in 
     producing a document that meets the intent of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the terms of the 
     Settlement Agreement that led to this Supplement. These 
     comments are provided in accordance with EPA's 
     responsibilities under NEPA and Section 309 of the Clean Air 
     Act, and we hope they will be useful to you as you complete 
     this supplemental analysis.
       EPA thanks the NPS for the opportunity to participate in 
     this SEIS as a Cooperating Agency. NPS has again fully 
     involved the Cooperating Agencies at every point in this 
     process. NPS was extremely responsive to the Cooperating 
     Agencies, and we appreciate the almost weekly opportunity to 
     provide input and ask questions. We also appreciate NPS' 
     efforts to fully evaluate and utilize applicable information 
     and input from the Cooperators. While the Settlement 
     Agreement set a very tight time frame for this analysis, and 
     though NPS received much of the new information much later 
     than expected, the NPS planning and analysis team is to be 
     commended for doing a remarkable job in assembling this 
     DSEIS.
       This DSEIS amends the Final Winter Use EIS (FEIS) issued in 
     October, 2000. The two primary purposes of the DSEIS are as 
     follows: (1) to solicit more public input, and (2) to include 
     data from new snowmobile technology and other new 
     information. This DSEIS analyzes four alternatives that fall 
     within the range of those alternatives presented in the FEIS.
       Alternative 1a represents the November 2000 Record of 
     Decision (ROD), fully phasing in he transfer of motorized 
     access to snowcoaches by 2003-2004. The existing ROD 
     implements FEIS Alternative G with minor modifications.
       Alternative 1b is identical to 1a except implementation is 
     extended one additional year, with full implementation in 
     2004-2005.
       Alternative 2, at full implementation, requires 50 percent 
     lower emissions on all snowmobiles, and caps snowmobiles in 
     Yellowstone at 1,300/day pending a carrying capacity 
     analysis.
       Alternative 3, at a full implementation, requires ``best 
     available technology'' for reducing emissions and noise for 
     all snowmobiles entering the Parks, and all snowmobiles would 
     be accompanied by a NPS licensed guide. Alternative 3 caps 
     use in Yellowstone at 930 snowmobiles per day until a 
     carrying capacity analysis is completed.
       EPA fully supports continued winter access to these 
     National Parks. Given the analysis presented in the DSEIS, 
     EPA is satisfied that if applicable regulation, law, and 
     federal policy are followed. Park resources can be protected 
     while maintaining motorized winter access to these Parks. 
     While this comment letter will suggest some adjustments and 
     additional analyses, EPA finds the Park Service again used 
     the best-available information, scientific analyses, expert 
     agency comment, and public input in assembling both the DSEIS 
     and FEIS (as required by 40 CFR 1500.1(b)). The assessment of 
     impacts in the DSEIS and FEIS is supported by an extremely 
     thorough and credible body of human health, environmental, 
     and wildlife science, much of which is site-specific to the 
     Yellowstone ecosystem. NPS, academic and agency researchers 
     have actively studied the impacts of snowmobile use for over 
     10 years in these Parks. The Yellowstone ecosystem has the 
     benefit of more peer-reviewed scientific research on the 
     effects of motorized winter recreation than any other place 
     on earth.
       EPA's primary concern with this supplemental analysis is 
     that three of the four DSEIS alternatives (1b, 2 and 3) 
     threaten to exceed National or Montana Ambient Air Quality 
     Standards for carbon monoxide in the first year of 
     implementation (2002-2003). NPS has the ability, information 
     and authority to set interim limits to vehicle numbers that 
     would assure compliance with Air Quality Standards. EPA 
     encourages interim vehicle limits be sufficiently reduced in 
     the FSEIS to assure compliance with these standards. Although 
     complying with Air Quality Standards does not assure 
     elimination of the impairment to visibility of human health 
     caused by vehicle exhaust, it is an achievable first step 
     toward resolving the impaired air quality in these Parks.
       In November, 2000, NPS issued a Record of Decision (ROD) 
     that resolved the winter-use threat to National and State air 
     Quality Standards as well as the significant impairments to 
     human health, visibility, wildlife and soundscapes. This 
     remedy was to being with actions taken this past winter 
     (2001-2002), with full implementation in 2003-04. EPA 
     recently learned that some actions required by the ROD to 
     reduce impacts to air quality this past winter were not 
     implemented. The ROD is an active policy document and 
     represents an agreement with the public for managing 
     winter use in these Parks. EPA is concerned that air 
     quality, human health and visibility continued to be 
     impaired this past season. As discussed in our enclosed 
     Detailed Comments, EPA is suggesting that interim limits 
     be adjusted in each of the SEIS alternatives to assure 
     compliance with air quality standards beginning this 
     coming season (2002-2003).
     Environmentally preferred alternative
       EPA has carefully considered the new information, analysis 
     and alternatives presented in the DSEIS, and we find FEIS 
     Alternative G remains the environmentally preferred 
     alternative. The analysis presented in this EIS clearly 
     indicates FEIS Alternative G would provide the best available 
     protection to human health, wildlife, air quality, water 
     quality, soundscapes, visitor experiences, and visibility 
     while maintaining motorized and non-motorized winter access 
     to these Parks. We are confident that Alternative G will 
     fully comply with all applicable environmental regulations, 
     policy and Executive Orders. EPA has no objections to this 
     alternative.
     EPA rating
       Based primarily on the disclosure in this DSEIS that 
     Alternatives 1b, 2 and 3 would likely result in noncompliance 
     with air quality standards and that air quality could 
     negatively impact human health, EPA is rating these three 
     action alternatives EO-2 (Environmental Objections, 2--
     Insufficient Information). Alternatives 2 and 3 are likely to 
     be inconsistent with NPS environmental policy regarding 
     protection of air quality and related values. ``EO-2'' 
     indicates that the EPA review has identified environmental 
     impacts including possible violation of environmental 
     regulations that can and should be avoided in order to fully 
     protect the environment. Corrective measures may require 
     substantial changes to the alternatives or consideration of 
     additional project alternatives. The identified additional 
     information, data, analyses or discussion should be included 
     in the Final SEIS (FSEIS). While Alternatives 1b, 2 and 3 all 
     receive the same EO-2 rating, EPA notes that there are 
     substantial differences in environmental performance between 
     these alternatives (see enclosed Detailed Comments). EPA 
     finds no environmental objection to the No Action Alternative 
     (1a). A full description of EPA's EIS rating system is 
     enclosed.
       Because the decision maker can select from among 
     alternatives in both the DSEIS and the FEIS, EPA is providing 
     a brief assessment of the alternatives in the FEIS as

[[Page S4056]]

     well. Because FEIS Alternatives A, B, C, D, E and F would 
     likely not comply with environmental regulation, policy and 
     executive orders, EPA has expressed environmental objections 
     with these alternatives (see EPA comments on Draft and Final 
     EISs). Again, EPA finds no environmental objection with 
     Alternative G.
       We appreciate the opportunity to review this DSEIS and 
     provide comments. A set of detailed comments on the DSEIS is 
     enclosed. Thank you for your willingness to consider our 
     comments at this stage of the process, and we hope they will 
     be useful to you. Should you have questions regarding these 
     comments, please contact Phil Strobel of my staff.
           Sincerely,

                                                Max H. Dodson,

                              Assistant Regional Administrator for
                            Ecosystems Protection and Remediation.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is important to print this in the Record 
because the administration had already signaled it expected the EPA to 
again sacrifice its own best scientific judgment to the political will 
of special interests. Again, the administration is signaling that the 
agency views will not be afforded weight.
  When the comments were revealed this past weekend, Administrator 
Whitman immediately came under fire to repudiate the longstanding 
policy of the EPA. While they have not gotten that for yet, EPA 
immediately instituted new policy designed to ensure that its views 
were in line with Cabinet-level counterparts. Perhaps elevating EPA to 
a Cabinet-level department would begin to change the outcome of these 
cases and elevate the importance of environmental protection to this 
administration. In this case, it is critically important that EPA and 
their views prevail.
  I ask Governor Whitman to stand strong. Yellowstone and Grand Teton 
are national treasures. People visit from all over the world in all 
seasons to see Old Faithful and the Grand Teton range.
  As I have said here before and other places, snowmobiling is an 
important form of recreation for many Americans. I snowmobile, and it 
is a lot of fun. Thousands of Nevadans snowmobile. But banning these 
vehicles from Yellowstone and Grand Teton will have almost no impact on 
the opportunities open to snowmobilers around this country. There are 
130,000 miles of snowmobile trails in the United States. These two 
national parks have a combined total of 600 miles. If the Park Service 
bans snowmobiles from these places, there will still be 129,400 miles 
of trail for snowmobilers.

  I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the value of the 
Environmental Protection Agency. To the administration, I hope they 
will join me in recognizing the value of our national parks and the 
need to preserve these wonderful national treasures of which Nevada has 
one, the Great Basin National Park, and it is a beauty. The Great Basin 
National Park is the second newest. We have a mountain peak that is 
about 13,000 feet high, but yet below that the park has some of the 
desert foliage. It represents everything in the Great Basin.
  In addition to that, the park has the oldest living attractions in 
the world in it, such as bristle corn pines more than 5,000 years old. 
So it is one of our great national parks.
  I have talked about two national parks today that I am particularly 
concerned about and hope we do not have snowmobiles rushing through 
there and we do not see park rangers with their Smokey the Bear hats 
with a respirator.

                          ____________________