[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.
____________________