[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 247 (Friday, December 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80908-80956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30998]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Record of Decision; Winter Use Plans for the Yellowstone and 
Grand Teton National Parks and John D. Rockefeller Jr., Memorial 
Parkway

    Responsible Official:

    Dated: November 22, 2000.
Karen Wade,
Intermountain Regional Director, National Park Service.

Record of Decision

Winter Use Plans for Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and the 
John D. Rockefeller Jr., Memorial Parkway

Table of Contents

The Decision

Decision

[[Page 80909]]

    Actions and Assumptions Common to All Units
    Actions Specific to Yellowstone National Park
    Actions Specific to Grand Teton National Park and the Parkway
    Definitions
    Mitigation
    Monitoring

Rationale for the Decision

    Basis for the Decision
    How Environmental Issues Were Considered and Addressed
    Factors Other Than Environmental Consequences Considered in 
Making the Decision
    Findings
    Measures Taken To Avoid Environmental Harm

Public Involvement

Scoping
Summary of Public Scoping Comment
Major Issues
Issues or Concerns Not Addressed in the Plans/EIS
Federal Register Notices
Distribution of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Public Meetings/Hearings
Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Public Response to the FEIS

Consultation

Cooperating Agencies
American Indian Tribes
State Historic Preservation Offices
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Alternatives Considered
Alternative Development
Scope of Analysis in the FEIS
Alternatives
Comparison of Alternatives

Environmentally Preferred Alternative Information Contact

Attachment A--Monitoring and Adaptive Management

Attachment B--Summary of Public Comments on the FEIS

Record of Decision

Winter Use Plans for Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and the 
John D. Rockefeller Jr., Memorial Parkway

The Decision

    This decision made as a result of the Winter Use Plans Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Yellowstone (YNP) and Grand 
Teton National Parks (GTNP) and the John D. Rockefeller Jr., Memorial 
Parkway (the Parkway) will guide winter use management in the three 
park units. The decision is to select a modified form of alternative G, 
as described and evaluated in the FEIS, with the changes to that 
alternative explained here. Elements of the decision are given in 
detail below as actions and assumptions common to all 3 units, actions 
specific to Yellowstone, actions specific to Grand Teton and the 
Parkway, mitigation, and monitoring. The maps for alternative G and the 
description of each management zone provided in the FEIS, while not 
duplicated in this Record of Decision, are features of this decision.
    In order to implement portions of this decision, the National Park 
Service (NPS) will propose to amend its regulations at 36 CFR 7.13(l), 
7.21(a), and 7.22(g). Although this decision is final for the purposes 
of this planning project, those elements that will go through the rule 
making process may be modified based on further public comments.

Decision

    The selected alternative emphasizes cleaner, quieter access to the 
parks using the technologies available today. Effective the winter of 
2003-2004 and thereafter, it will allow oversnow motorized recreation 
access via NPS-managed snowcoach only, with limited exceptions for 
continued snowmobile access to other public and private lands adjacent 
to or within GTNP. Until then, interim actions will progressively 
reduce the impacts from snowmobile use in the parks.
    This decision addresses the full range of issues regarding safety, 
natural resource impacts, and visitor experience and access. It 
addresses the issues in a way that will make it necessary for local 
economies to adapt, and for snowmobile users to access the parks using 
a different mode of transport.

Actions and Assumptions Common to All Units

Implementation
     Unless otherwise noted, the parks will implement all 
actions the winter following the Record of Decision (ROD) for the 
winter use plans and EIS. Actions requiring a change in regulations 
will be implemented once the new regulations are effective.
     If it can be demonstrated sufficiently for NPS to 
determine that an implemented action has affected or would 
substantially affect a concession operation prior to the expiration of 
its contract, the action will be implemented only through negotiation 
or when a new contract is awarded.
     NPS will develop a detailed snowcoach implementation plan 
in coordination with gateway communities, concessioners and winter 
permittees.
     NPS will coordinate with gateway communities, 
concessioners and winter permittees and state tourism program resources 
on a new marketing strategy designed to facilitate winter visitation by 
snowcoach.
     Allow a planning and implementation period of 3 (three) 
years.
     In the winter of 2000-2001, snowmobile and snowplane use 
will continue under current regulations. This is a departure from 
alternative G. This change is made because the implementation of 
changes in snowmobile and snowplane use that require new regulations 
could not be made until the 2000-2001 season is nearly over. Waiting 
until 2001-2002 to set new limits on snowmobile and snowplane use will 
afford ample public notice of the new limits.
     In the winter of 2000-2001, actions that do not require 
regulations (such as increasing ranger patrols to reduce the 
disturbance of wildlife) will be undertaken to reduce the impacts from 
snowmobile use.
     In the winters of 2001-2003, existing commercial snowcoach 
operators will be encouraged to increase their fleet size, and 
snowmobile and other new operators will be encouraged to purchase or 
lease coaches and reduce snowmobile numbers.
     In 2001-2002, daily limits will be set on snowmobile and 
snowplane use so that daily use levels cannot increase above the 
average peak day use levels of recent years, as shown in table 1, 
below.
     In 2002-2003, daily limits will be set to limit total 
recreational snowmobile use to approximately 50% of the current average 
annual use levels at the South and West Entrances of YNP. Current 
snowmobile use levels will be maintained from the East and North 
Entrances of YNP. See table 1, below.
     In 2002-2003 for GTNP and the Parkway eliminate snowmobile 
use on the Teton Park Road, all motorized use on Jackson Lake, and all 
other recreational snowmobile use except for that on the CDST, Grassy 
Lake Road, and access routes to adjacent public lands, with limits 
shown in table 1, below.
     In 2003-2004 and thereafter, all oversnow motorized 
visitor travel in the parks will be by snowcoach, except for limited 
routes in GTNP that will remain open for snowmobile access to adjacent 
public or private lands and to private inholdings.
Regulation/Enforcement/Administration
     Several actions include possible road closures depending 
on the results of scientific studies. None of the actions preclude 
other closures for safety,

[[Page 80910]]

resource protection, or other reasons as identified in 36 CFR 1.5 or 
2.18.
     At present no Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
standards exist for off-road vehicles. If the EPA adopts standards or 
measurement methods for vehicle emissions and sound applicable to 
winter use in the parks, they will be implemented in accordance with 
EPA regulations.
     Require all new oversnow vehicles purchased by the parks 
to conform to the best environmental standards available, and that 
other vehicles are retrofitted whenever possible with new technologies 
designed to lower sound and emission levels.
     Increase the field presence of park rangers during the 
interim period before full implementation of snowcoach access to 
monitor, anticipate, detect and mitigate resource and wildlife impacts 
and to increase visitor safety.
Resource Protection
     Continue scientific studies and monitoring regarding 
winter visitor use and park resources. Close selected areas of the 
park, including sections of roads, to visitor use if scientific studies 
indicate that human presence or activities have a detrimental effect on 
wildlife or other park resources that could not otherwise be mitigated. 
The appropriate level of environmental assessment under NEPA will be 
completed for all actions as required by CEQ regulations (40 CFR parts 
1500-1508).
     Give a 1-year notice before any closure is implemented 
unless immediate closure is deemed necessary to avoid impairment of 
park resources or to protect public safety.
     Sand, or an equally environmentally neutral substance, 
will be used for traction on all plowed winter roads. Before spring 
opening, sand removal operations will continue on all plowed park 
roads.
     Investigate and implement options to reduce the 
palatability and accessibility to wildlife of the hydraulic fluid used 
in snow groomers.
     When snow depth warrants and at periodic intervals, 
routine plowing or grooming operations will include laying back 
roadside snowbanks that could be a barrier to wildlife exiting the road 
corridor.
Visitor Use and Access
     NPS will determine visitor use capacities based on studies 
that set indicators and standards for desired visitor experiences and 
resource conditions. The NPS will monitor indicators to maintain the 
conditions for each management prescription. If necessary, techniques 
such as reservations, permits, and differential fees will be 
implemented. See zone descriptions, monitoring table, and Appendix H 
(Recreation Carrying Capacity).
     Continue to implement transition and action plans for 
accessibility and support the philosophy of universal access in the 
parks. The NPS will make reasonable efforts to ensure accessibility to 
buildings, facilities, programs, and services. The NPS will develop 
strategies to ensure that new and renovated facilities, programs and 
services (including those provided by concessioners) are designed, 
constructed, or offered in conformance with applicable policies, rules, 
regulations, and standards (including but not limited to the 
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968; the Americans with Disabilities Act 
of 1990 (ADA): the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards of 1984 
(UFAS); and the Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas of 1999).
     Architectural and Site Access and Programmatic Access: The 
NPS will evaluate existing buildings and existing and new programs, 
activities, and services (including telecommunications and media) to 
determine current accessibility and usability by disabled winter 
visitors. Action plans to remove barriers will be developed.
     This decision includes an affirmative commitment to 
implement strategies designed to provide a reasonable level of 
affordable access to winter park visitors.
     Backcountry nonmotorized use will continue to be allowed 
throughout the parks except where designated otherwise for resource 
protection purposes (shown as Zone 11 or area of designated trail use 
on alternative map).
     Other means of oversnow travel not foreseen in this Record 
of Decision must be specifically approved by the park superintendent.
     In the third year of the interim period (2002-2003), 
snowmobiles in YNP must be accompanied by an NPS permitted guide and 
travel in groups of no more than 11 (including the guide). The 
superintendent will be authorized to also require groups and guides in 
GTNP and the Parkway.
     In 2003-2004 and thereafter, permit only NPS-managed mass 
transit snowcoaches on designated oversnow roads, other than for 
allowable administrative, emergency or other snowmobile access as 
specified in other actions in this document.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Note: The term ``NPS managed'' refers to permit management. 
In this case the mass transportation snowcoach system would be 
provided by private concessioners who operate under a permit from 
the NPS. Under the terms of the permit or concessions contract, the 
NPS may stipulate, among other items, the type of services to be 
offered, cost to the public, and number of visitors that may be 
served or transported. The NPS may require that the types of 
vehicles used meet certain environmental, accessibility and safety 
requirements. It is the responsibility of the NPS to monitor all 
services offered under permit to ensure that the public and the 
parks are being well served. These permits are generally offered for 
competitive bidding in limited numbers and are granted for a 
specific number of years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Through the permitting process phase out all oversnow 
vehicles that do not meet the best available environmental standards 
for oversnow mass transit travel. Currently, the mass transit oversnow 
vehicle that produces the lowest emissions is the conversion van mat 
track.\2\ Any oversnow mass transit system in the parks must be low 
emission, quiet, safe, affordable, accessible, and comply with the 
requirements of EO 11644.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Estimates of emissions for conventional vans converted for 
oversnow travel indicate that the emissions increase once the 
conversion is made. For this reason adherence to EPA regulations for 
similar wheeled vans is neither appropriate nor required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Allow mass transit snowcoaches only when their sound 
levels are at or below 75 decibels as measured on the A-weighted scale 
at 50 feet at full throttle. Continue to work with snowcoach 
manufacturers and operators to meet a long-term goal to lower snowcoach 
sound levels to 70 decibels or lower.
     Prohibit late night oversnow travel from about 11 p.m. to 
6 a.m. in 2000-2001, and thereafter from about 9 p.m. to 8 a.m., unless 
specifically authorized.
     Implement an information program on snow and trail 
conditions, points of interest, and available recreational 
opportunities. Through partnerships, establish park visitor contact 
opportunities in gateway communities and utilize state tourism program 
resources.

Actions Specific to Yellowstone National Park

     In Yellowstone, the NPS will continue to allow the plowing 
of Highway 191 and will continue to plow the road from Mammoth to Tower 
and Tower to the Northeast Entrance (Cooke City) throughout the winter.
     Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone and the McMinn Bench 
bighorn sheep area will continue to be closed to winter use.
     Winter garbage storage facilities that are wildlife-proof 
will be constructed in the Old Faithful, Grant, Lake, and Canyon areas.

[[Page 80911]]

     Continue all existing groomed motorized routes (zone 3). 
Offer snowcoach service on the East Entrance Road if safety goals can 
be met. Management of avalanche danger on the East Entrance Road may 
mean unscheduled closures of the road to all travel.
     Provide nonmotorized opportunities (e.g., skiing and 
snowshoeing) (zones 8 and 9). Examples of existing roads or trails that 
will be groomed include Fountain Flats Road and portions of the East 
Entrance road.
     Where feasible, set parallel tracks on one or both sides 
of the snow roads to facilitate nonmotorized access.
     Increase interpretive opportunities related to the unique 
aspects of the winter environment by providing interpretive programs at 
destination areas and warming huts. Provide guided interpretive 
programs for organized groups on snowcoaches. Provide interpretive ski 
and snowshoe tours and programs such as near Tower, Canyon, Mammoth, 
Old Faithful, West Thumb, Madison, and West Entrance.
     Increase the size and number of warming huts and other day 
use facilities. Place warming huts and restrooms at popular ski 
trailheads (for example Tower), as support for motorized staging areas 
(for example Norris), and where the existing facility size is currently 
inadequate to handle to the dual function of warming hut and 
interpretive program staging area (for example, Canyon).
     Restrict nonmotorized uses in certain wildlife winter 
ranges and thermal areas to travel on designated routes or trails 
(zones 8 and 9).
     Implement the winter use season during the period from 
late November to mid-March.
     Reduce administrative snowmobile \3\ use from the 106 
currently used and supplement with administrative snowcoaches, subject 
to available funding. When practicable, replace administrative 
snowmobiles with a type that meets the best available emission and 
sound limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EO 11644, sections (3) and (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Continue allowing personal non-recreation use of 
snowmobiles by employees and their families living in the interior of 
Yellowstone; however, subject to available funding, provide 
administrative snowcoaches for their use and encourage them to replace 
their current snowmobiles with cleaner and quieter machines.
     Allow limited use of administrative snowmobiles by 
concessioners. Require cleaner and quieter technologies as they are 
developed (through permit and contracts) and encourage the use of 
snowcoaches.

Actions Specific to Grand Teton National Park and the Parkway

     In Grand Teton and the Parkway, the following roadways 
will continue to be plowed:
     Highway 26/89/187 from the south boundary of the park to 
Moran
     Highway 89/287 from Moran to Colter Bay
     Highway 26/287 from Moran to the eastern park boundary
     Teton Park Road from Moose Junction to Taggart Lake 
Trailhead, and from Jackson Lake Junction to Signal Mountain Lodge; 
from Highway 89/287 along the Pacific Creek road to the park boundary; 
from Kelly to the eastern park boundary; from Gros Ventre Junction to 
Kelly to Shadow Mountain staging area; and the road to the eastern park 
boundary at Ditch Creek.
     Current winter closures will remain in effect on the Snake 
River floodplain, the Buffalo Fork River floodplain, the Uhl Hill area, 
Willow Flats, Kelly Hill, and Static Peak.
     Reasonable and direct access to adjacent public and 
private lands, or to privately owned lands within the park with 
permitted or historical motorized access, will continue via paved and 
plowed routes or via oversnow routes from GTNP (used by 
snowmobiles).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 16 U.S.C. 406d-1, et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Provide opportunities for oversnow motorized trail use 
(zone 3) by snowcoaches only on the unplowed, groomed surface of the 
highway from Colter Bay to Flagg Ranch, in the future upon the meeting 
of certain conditions, and, effective 2003-2004 and thereafter, north 
into Yellowstone, and on the Grassy Lake Road.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Termination of plowing from Colter Bay to Flagg Ranch is 
contingent upon the winterization of facilities at Colter Bay and 
expiration and reissuance of a concession contract associated with 
Flagg Ranch. The present contract expires in 2009. See Actions and 
Assumptions Common to All Units, second bullet under Implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Provide opportunities for nonmotorized ungroomed winter 
trail use (zone 9):
     On the Teton Park Road from Taggert Lake Trailhead to 
Signal Mountain.
     On Antelope Flats.
     Near Colter Bay and Two Ocean Lake.
     On the unplowed portion of the Moose-Wilson road.
     Continue destination and support facilities at Moose, 
Triangle X, Colter Bay, and Flagg Ranch, and add warming hut facilities 
along the Teton Park Road to provide visitor services and interpretive 
opportunities that focus on nonmotorized uses (zone 1).
     Limit backcountry nonmotorized use to designated routes to 
address wildlife issues in certain wildlife winter ranges, or close 
certain areas to all use.
     Winterize facilities at Colter Bay to provide a suitable 
staging area for snowcoach access.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This provision is contingent upon the termination of plowing 
from Colter Bay to Flagg Ranch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Effective 2002-2003, discontinue the motorized use of 
Jackson Lake's frozen surface (no snowplanes or snowmobiles).
     Increase interpretive opportunities related to the unique 
aspects of the winter environment by providing interpretive programs at 
destination areas and warming huts. Provide guided interpretive 
programs for organized groups on snowcoaches. Provide interpretive ski 
and snowshoe tours and programs at locations such as Moose, Colter Bay, 
and Flagg Ranch visitor services.
     Phase in administrative snowmobile types that meet the 
best available emission and sound limits. Administrative use of 
snowmobiles in Grand Teton is limited to law enforcement, utility and 
maintenance access, permitted scientific studies, search and rescue or 
other use as approved by the superintendent.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EO 11644, sections (3) and (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definitions

     Oversnow motor vehicles: self-propelled vehicles intended 
for travel on snow, driven by a track or tracks in contact with the 
snow that may be steered by skis or tracks in contact with the snow. 
This term includes both snowmobiles and snowcoaches.
     Snowmobiles: self-propelled vehicles intended for travel 
on snow, having a curb weight of not more than 1,000 pounds (450kg), 
driven by a track or tracks in contact with the snow, which may be 
steered by a ski or skis in contact with the snow.
     Snowplanes: self-propelled vehicles intended for oversnow 
travel, having a weight of not more than 1,000 pounds (450kg) mounted 
on skis in contact with the snow, and driven by a pusher-propeller.
     Snowcoaches: self-propelled, mass transit vehicles 
intended for travel on snow, having a curb weight of over 1,000 pounds 
(450kg), driven by a track or tracks and steered by skis or tracks, 
having a capacity of at least 8 passengers.
     The phrase gateway communities refers to the towns of 
Jackson and Cody,

[[Page 80912]]

Wyoming, and Gardiner and West Yellowstone, Montana.
     A designated route for nonmotorized recreation is defined 
as a marked or otherwise indicated oversnow travel way.

Mitigation

    Mitigation beyond the actions described in the decision is 
necessary to reduce disclosed impacts to a level that meets legal 
requirements, or that is otherwise acceptable within the framework of 
regulations, executive orders or policies. The following measures are 
necessary to further mitigate impacts of this decision during the 
interim period before full implementation and thereafter.
Air Quality
     Park concessions will be required to mitigate the impacts 
of air pollution during the interim period by selling only bio-fuels 
and synthetic lubes inside the park.
Water Resources
     Best management practices will be used during the 
construction, reconstruction, or winter plowing of trails and roads to 
prevent unnecessary vegetation removal, erosion, and sedimentation.
     Separate new or reconstructed winter-motorized trails from 
drainages where practicable to mitigate the routing of snowpack 
contaminants into surface water.
     Any new or reconstructed winter use sanitary facilities 
will be constructed in locations and with advanced technologies that 
will protect water resources.
     A focused monitoring program will reduce the uncertainty 
of impacts from oversnow vehicles, and if necessary indicate best 
management practices that might be implemented.
Wildlife, Including Federally Protected Species and Species of Special 
Concern
     NPS personnel will patrol sensitive resource locations to 
ensure compliance with area closures.
     NPS personnel will increase patrols of locations where 
disturbance of wildlife by snowmobile use is most common, to reduce 
that disturbance.
     Monitoring of eagle populations to identify and protect 
nests will continue. The park will continue to support the objectives 
of the Greater Yellowstone Bald Eagle Management Plan.
     Monitoring of wolf populations will continue.
     Lynx surveys will be undertaken to document the 
distribution and abundance of lynx in the parks and their relationship 
to packed surfaces. The presence of other carnivores will be 
documented. The parks will abide by the recommendations of the Lynx 
Conservation Assessment Strategy.
     Continue to assess grizzly bear abundance, distribution, 
and habitat selection, including the location of dens. The information 
obtained will assist park managers in protecting important habitats and 
planning recreational activities that minimize disturbance to bears. 
Monitoring grizzly bear populations will continue in accordance with 
the Interagency Grizzly Bear Management Guidelines and the parks' bear 
management plans.
     Monitoring and protecting trumpeter swan habitats and 
nests will continue, including the closure of nest sites, when 
warranted, to public access from February 1 to September 15.
     Monitoring potential or known winter use conflicts will 
result in area closures if necessary to protect wildlife habitat.
     Conduct snow track surveys for carnivores (including lynx) 
on both groomed and ungroomed routes.
     Continue to monitor use of groomed, ungroomed, and plowed 
surfaces by bison and other ungulates.
Cultural Resources
     Should the discovery of human remains, funerary objects, 
sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony occur during 
construction, provisions outlined in the Native American Graves 
Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 USC 3001) will be followed.
     Trails and trailheads will be sited to avoid adversely 
impacting known cultural resources, including potential cultural 
landscapes. In addition, the use of natural materials and colors for 
all permanent signs erected will allow the signs to blend into their 
surroundings.
Interim Snowmobile Use Limits
    During the winter of 2000-2001 snowmobile use will continue to be 
allowed under existing regulations. This deviates from the FEIS since 
regulations on use limits will not be finalized until near the end of 
that winter season or later. Making a change during that season would 
not provide enough notice to visitors, many of whom would have already 
made plans to visit the parks before any limits could be finalized.
     During the winter of 2001-2002, snowmobile use will be 
capped as follows:
     Set daily snowmobile use numbers for all three park units 
at levels not to exceed the 7-year peak daily average. The visitor 
scenario developed for alternative A (see FEIS appendix G) shows 
snowmobile use distribution at YNP gateways, and by road segments in 
the three parks at both the current daily average and peak average 
snowmobile use levels over the past seven years. The scenario provides 
numbers that can be expressed as interim visitor use limits. Maximum 
daily limits at the entrances will be set at the average peak day 
snowmobile use (see Table 1 and footnote at the bottom of the following 
page).
     For snowplane use on Jackson Lake reissue permits to 
permit holders of record and do not issue any new permits. Limit 
snowmobile use on Jackson Lake to 30 per day.
     If monitoring indicates a trend of significant increase 
above average daily use as shown in Table 1, NPS will considering 
adjusting the cap downward at other than traditional peak use periods 
pursuant to, and as authorized under, 36 CFR 1.5 and 2.18.
     In 2002-2003 set daily snowmobile entrance limits to 
reduce total recreational snowmobile use to levels that will result in 
approximately 50% of the current average annual use level at the South 
and West Entrances of YNP. Current snowmobile use levels will be 
maintained from the East and North Entrances of YNP.
     In 2002-2003 for the Parkway, in addition to limiting use 
between Flagg Ranch and the South Entrance to YNP, limit snowmobile use 
on the Grassy Lake Road and the CDST in the Parkway to current use 
levels.
     In 2002-2003 for GTNP eliminate snowmobile use on the 
Teton Park Road, all motorized use on Jackson Lake, and all other 
recreational use by snowmobiles except for that on the CDST and access 
routes to adjacent public lands. Limit snowmobile use on the CDST in 
GTNP to current use levels.
     In 2003-2004 and thereafter, all oversnow motorized 
visitor travel in the parks will be by snowcoach except for limited 
routes in GTNP that will remain open for snowmobile access.

[[Page 80913]]



 Table 1.--Interim Caps on Snowmobiles in Yellowstone (YNP), Rockefeller Parkway (JDRMP) and Grand Teton (GTNP)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Historic average   2001-2002  Peak  2002-2003  Daily
                       Road segments                            daily use        day limits          limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YNP North Entrance........................................                41                60                60
YNP West Entrance.........................................               555              1030               278
YNP East Entrance.........................................                37               100                65
JDRMP Flagg Ranch to YNP South Entrance...................               176               330                90
JDRMP Grassy Lake Road....................................                25                40                25
JDRMP Flagg Ranch to GTNP Moran Junction..................                25                70                25
GTNP Jackson Lake.........................................                30                30                 0
GTNP Teton Park Road......................................                11                20                 0
GTNP Moose-Wilson Road....................................                 3                10                 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    *Implementation of this limit is to ensure that use does not exceed 
the historic averages for use on the busiest peak days and the level of 
impact associated with it. Use fluctuates daily, increasing especially 
during certain holiday periods. Use caps should act to allow such 
fluctuations, since this is the nature of business and visitation. This 
is why the peak use day represents a cap, to allow the business pattern 
to continue. It is not the intent of this cap to allow peak use numbers 
to occur every day. If this were to occur then levels would be exceeded 
overall, and additional impacts would be incurred. It is the intent of 
this cap to replicate the pattern and amount of use that has been 
established over an average of seven years.

Monitoring

    In order to assess the long-term effects of management actions on 
park resources and values resource inventory, monitoring and adaptive 
management are incorporated into this decision. The key resources and 
values potentially impacted by winter recreation use in the three park 
units are air quality, wildlife, sound,\8\ water resources, safety, and 
visitor experience. Attachment A outlines specific indicators for 
monitoring these resources and values. The indicators will be monitored 
to ensure protection of natural resources and park values and evaluate 
management success. The selected alternative also includes adaptive 
management provisions. It provides for systematic feedback to park 
management and allows for adjustment of activities to mitigate 
unplanned or undesirable outcomes. Procedures, indicators, standards 
and potential management actions for adaptive management are also 
presented in Attachment A.
    Monitoring programs will be coordinated among the parks. The 
programs will function and be coordinated through the planning staffs 
of the parks. The development of annual plans and reports will be 
coordinated through the planning units, and the planning units will be 
responsible for delivering those products. Actual monitoring 
responsibilities for park personnel will be assigned through annual 
plans.
    Monitoring programs will be conducted on a sampling basis for the 
purpose of effective use of funds and personnel. It is expected that 
initial monitoring will be intensive, both in geographic and temporal 
extent, so that correlations can be made and results can be 
extrapolated. It is also expected that monitoring over time will become 
less intensive and arrive at a low intensity, maintenance level. 
Sampling schedules can vary from year to year, focusing on different 
areas within the park units.
    U.S. EPA expressed concerns about the actions that would be taken 
if NPS does not have sufficient funds to monitor winter use in 
accordance with the adaptive management part of this decision. Actions 
affecting park values for which there are no defined standards, such as 
odor, sound or visitor satisfaction, are subject to an adaptive 
management approach. If continuing problems are indicated relative to 
such impacts, but there are not sufficient funds for focused monitoring 
and evaluation of those problems, emergency management actions will be 
implemented to eliminate the impact pending the attainment of funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NPS Director's Order #47 provides guidance for inventory and 
monitoring procedures necessary to preserve the natural soundscape. 
NPS-77 provides guidance for monitoring and inventory of other 
natural resources elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rationale for the Decision

    This section provides the reasons for selecting FEIS alternative G 
as the decision and the basis for winter use plans in the three park 
units. In arriving at this decision, I have considered the detailed 
analysis of effects in the FEIS for a range of alternative plans that 
would govern winter use. I have considered how each alternative 
responds to the purpose and need for action, to improve existing 
conditions in the parks and move them toward a desired condition that 
is implicit in NPS mandates. In doing so, I considered the impacts for 
each alternative program and weighed them against affirmative direction 
for protecting park resources and values, and their enjoyment by future 
generations, from adverse impacts or impairment. I also considered the 
degree to which each alternative would enhance the condition of 
resources or values and their enjoyment. Other considerations include 
socioeconomic impacts, effects on lands adjacent to the three parks, 
the plans or desires articulated by local communities and nonfederal 
governments, and the full body of public comments on the draft EIS. All 
these considerations are presented below as they contribute to the 
decision.
    The fundamental basis for the decision is the direction provided in 
laws, regulations, executive orders and policies (mandates) that relate 
to human uses of the parks and their effect on park resources and 
values. This basis is overlain by the analysis of effects on park 
resources and values disclosed in the FEIS. Then, conclusions or 
findings are made about the alternatives and their effects in relation 
to the key mandates regarding adverse impacts and impairment. Other 
considerations are incorporated into the discussion.

Basis for the Decision

Law
    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

[[Page 80914]]

values, even when there is no risk that any park resources or values 
may be impaired. NPS managers must always seek ways to avoid, or to 
minimize to the greatest degree practicable, adverse impacts on park 
resources and values. The laws give the NPS the discretion to allow 
some impacts to park resources and values when appropriate and 
necessary to fulfill the purposes of a park as long as that impact does 
not constitute impairment.
    The Organic Act mandate includes providing for the enjoyment of 
park resources and values by the people of the United States. The 
mandate applies not just to the people who visit the parks--but to all 
the people--including those who derive inspiration and knowledge from 
afar. NPS policies acknowledge that providing opportunities for public 
enjoyment is a fundamental part of the NPS mission. While the policies 
permit recreation and other activities, including NPS management 
activities, they may be allowed only when they will not cause an 
impairment or derogation of a park's resources, values or purposes. 
Recognizing that the enjoyment of the national parks by future 
generations can be assured only if the quality of park resources and 
values is left unimpaired, Congress has provided that when there is a 
conflict between conserving resources and values and providing for 
enjoyment of them, conservation is to be the primary concern.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Redwood Act of March 27, 1978 serves as the basis for 
any judicial resolution of competing private and public values and 
interests in the national park system, and affirms the primary 
consideration of conserving, unimpaired, park resources and values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulation
    Snowmobiling (specifically) may be allowed only where it is 
consistent with the park's natural, cultural, scenic and aesthetic 
values, safety considerations, park management objectives, and will not 
disturb wildlife or damage park resources.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 36 CFR 2.18 Snowmobiles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Orders
    Areas and trails for off road vehicle use shall be located in areas 
of the national park system only if the agency head determines that off 
road vehicle use in such locations will not adversely effect their 
natural, aesthetic or scenic values. Use will be controlled or directed 
to protect the resources, promote safety, and minimize conflicts among 
various users of those lands. Also, the agency head shall monitor the 
effects of such use that may be authorized, and upon that information 
they shall from time to time amend or rescind designations, or take 
other actions to eliminate adverse impacts.\11\ If the agency 
determines that the use of off-road vehicles (including snowmobiles) 
will cause or is causing considerable adverse effects on the soil, 
vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, such areas shall immediately be 
closed to that use.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ EO 11644, Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands, Federal 
Register, Vol 37, page 2877, No. 27-Wed. February 9, 1972.
    \12\ EO 11989, Off Road Vehicles on Public Lands, Federal 
Register, Vol 42, page 26959 No: 101-Wed. May 25, 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interpretation of Policy
    Impairment is an impact that, in the professional judgment of the 
responsible NPS manager, would harm the integrity of park resources or 
values, including the opportunities that otherwise would be present for 
the enjoyment of those resources or values. Impairment may occur from 
visitor use or park management activities.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Directors Order #55, September 8, 2000, as amended November 
17, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NPS Director's Order # 55 define the terms ``resources and values'' 
as the park's scenery, natural and historic objects, and wildlife, 
including, to the extent present in the park: The ecological, 
biological and physical processes that created the park and that 
continue to act upon it; scenic features; natural visibility (both in 
daytime and at night); natural landscapes; natural soundscapes \14\ and 
smells; water and air resources; soil; geological resources; 
paleontological resources; archeological resources; cultural 
landscapes; ethnographic resources; historic and prehistoric sites, 
structures, and objects; museum collections; and native plants and 
animals. The park's resources and values also include the opportunity 
for enjoyment of these resources, to the extent that can be done 
without impairing them. The term also includes the park's role in 
contributing to the national dignity, the high public value and 
integrity, and the superlative environmental quality of the national 
park system, and the benefit and inspiration provided to the American 
people by the national park and any additional specific purposes for 
which a park was established. An impact is more likely to constitute an 
impairment to the extent that it affects a resource or value whose 
conservation is:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ NPS Director's Order #47 articulates operational policies 
requiring the protection, maintenance or restoration of the natural 
soundscape resource in a condition unimpaired by inappropriate noise 
sources. Inappropriate noise is that generated by activities at a 
level described as excessive, which impacts the park's natural 
soundscapes and jeopardizes the natural resources or the purposes 
for which the park was created.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the 
establishing legislation;
     Key to the cultural or natural integrity of the park or 
opportunities to enjoy the park; or
     Identified as a goal in relevant NPS planning documents.
    The 1988 NPS Management Policies state that the National Park 
Service will seek to perpetuate the best possible air quality in parks 
because clean air is critical to visitor enjoyment, human health, 
scenic vistas, and the preservation of natural systems and cultural 
resources. The policies also recognize that many natural resources, 
including water and wildlife, are sensitive to air pollution. 
Additionally, NPS must err on the side of protecting air quality and 
related values if there is doubt as to the impacts on park resources of 
existing or potential air pollution.\15\ NPS also has recognized that 
it must preserve the natural quiet and the natural sounds associated 
with the physical and biological resources of the parks. Managers must 
monitor sounds and take actions to prevent or minimize unnatural sounds 
that adversely affect park resources or values and visitors' enjoyment 
of them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 1988 NPS Management Policies, Chapter 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 1988 NPS management policies \16\ also recognize that the NPS 
Organic Act directs the agency to provide for the public enjoyment of 
parks while leaving resources unimpaired for future generations. The 
policies mandate that the use of parks will be resource-based and 
nonconsumptive of resources. To the extent practicable, the NPS will 
encourage people to come to the parks and to pursue inspirational, 
educational, and recreational activities related to the resources found 
in the parks. NPS must manage visitor use and, as necessary, regulate 
the amount and kind, and the time and place, of visitor activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 1988 NPS Management Policies, Chapter 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NPS must encourage recreational activities that are consistent with 
applicable legislation, that promote visitor enjoyment of park 
resources through a direct association or relation to those resources 
so long as those uses are consistent with the protection of the 
resources and are compatible with other visitor uses. NPS must manage 
recreational use to protect park resources, provide for public 
enjoyment, promote public safety, and minimize conflicts with other 
visitor activities and park uses. Finally, unless the activity is 
required by statute, NPS will not allow

[[Page 80915]]

a recreational activity in a park if it would involve or result in:
     Inconsistency with the park's enabling legislation or 
proclamation, or derogation of the values or purposes for which the 
park was established
     Unacceptable impacts on visitor enjoyment due to 
interference or conflict with other visitor use activities
     Consumptive use of park resources
     Unacceptable impacts on park resources or natural 
processes
     Unacceptable levels of danger to the welfare or safety of 
the public, including participants
    Public use of a park is an important reason for the creating and 
sustaining the national park system. In developing the winter use plan 
and environmental impact statement, the goal of the parks was to 
provide for a winter use experience to a wide range of people, not just 
to the most physically fit. Given the mandate of the Organic Act, to 
preserve and provide for public enjoyment, some level of adverse impact 
from visitor use during the winter is acceptable, if the parks mitigate 
the impacts to the greatest extent practicable. Should future 
monitoring disclose that the impacts are too much for the resources to 
sustain, it will be appropriate to further restrict winter visitor use 
in the parks.

How Environmental Issues Were Considered and Addressed

    Considering present winter use activities, the key management 
concerns and objectives relating to park resources and values are: Air 
quality, wildlife (especially ungulates), natural soundscapes, and 
opportunities for visitor experience (of these resources and values, 
including scenic quality and aesthetics). Related concerns that are key 
elements in the desired condition are the safety of employees and 
visitors, and access for purposes of park enjoyment. Finally, there is 
an issue regarding how local, private commercial industries have 
developed to serve visitors and facilitate their enjoyment of the 
parks.
Natural Resources
    The analysis of natural resource/environmental consequences for a 
range of alternatives shows clearly that there are overall adverse 
impacts associated with snowmobile use in the parks, even when some 
areas are closed to that use. Snowmobile use at current levels 
adversely affects wildlife, air quality, and natural soundscapes and 
natural odors. Further, it adversely impacts the enjoyment of those 
values and resources by other visitors. The impact on people who may 
visit the three parks once or twice in a lifetime, and who seek the 
resources and values for which the parks were created, may be adversely 
and irretrievably affected.
    Elimination of these impacts is most easily and effectively 
accomplished by eliminating snowmobile use. Holding use at current 
levels under all alternatives but G would allow documented adverse 
impacts of snowmobiles to continue. The level of adverse impact varies 
by resource or value, and by alternative, but it is demonstrated to be 
more than negligible and often moderate when considered cumulatively 
over the three park units. Locally, the impact can be major. The effect 
on resources and values is demonstrated to impact the enjoyment of 
those resources by other visitors. Mitigation of the impacts of 
snowmobiles, as proposed in the different alternatives, is insufficient 
to reduce the impacts to a level deemed acceptable within the 
constraints of the law, regulations, executive orders and policies 
presented as the basis for this decision. Reduction of numbers of 
snowmobiles is problematic because carrying capacity studies are left 
to the future, and adverse impacts would continue until capacities are 
determined and effectively implemented.
    Other winter uses and means of access also produce impacts. Cross 
country skiing and other nonmotorized forms of recreation are shown to 
impact wildlife. Since there are areas that can be identified as 
critical to bison and other ungulates, mitigation as proposed in some 
alternatives effectively reduces or eliminates the impairment. 
Snowplane use, though limited to Jackson Lake, has a dominant and 
unmitigated impact on the natural soundscape.
    The use of snowcoaches on groomed roads is demonstrated to impact 
wildlife, air quality, and natural soundscapes. However, mass transit 
snowcoach use effectively mitigates the closure of parks to snowmobiles 
and results in much less traffic while allowing winter access for 
current levels of visitation. Snowcoaches would impact resources or 
values, or the enjoyment of them (at the current level of visitation) 
at least a magnitude lower than with snowmobile access. Adverse impacts 
of an NPS managed snowcoach system on wildlife, as in alternative G, 
would occur at low and mitigable levels.

Factors Other Than Environmental Consequences Considered in Making the 
Decision

Safety and Access
    Safety issues are related to access issues. Modes of access and 
volumes of traffic are primary factors. Presently unsafe conditions can 
be improved, as proposed in several alternatives, by separating 
different uses and modes of transport, by eliminating wheeled vehicle 
use in places, and by eliminating large volumes of oversnow motorized 
use especially where ungulates use groomed surfaces. Safety would be 
most improved where a number of these measures are combined, as in 
alternatives F and G. All alternatives hypothesize impacts on the basis 
of motorized oversnow access at current use levels. However, there are 
different mixes of snowcoach, snowplane, and snowmobile use, 
distributed differently through the range of alternatives. In some 
areas, snowmobiles operate on groomed trails in the same locale as 
nonomotorized visitors, wheeled vehicles and large ungulates. 
Therefore, there is a risk that continued snowmobile use would result 
in accidents and is unsafe. In some places, the volume of wheeled 
vehicle traffic during the winter--much of which is associated with 
snowmobile staging--results in a higher rate of accidents. This 
represents a situation that must be remedied. The selected alternative 
eliminates the source of most safety concerns, snowmobile use, as well 
as wheeled vehicle use on a plowed road that currently has a high 
winter accident rate (Highway 89/287 from Colter Bay to Flagg Ranch). 
Discontinued plowing of the route from Colter Bay to Flagg Ranch would 
also convert Flagg Ranch to an oversnow destination. This would provide 
a new opportunity of that nature, similar to that available at Old 
Faithful in Yellowstone's interior. Opportunities for developing winter 
recreation around Flagg Ranch are abundant. There is a perception that 
not plowing the road would make a snowcoach trip from Colter Bay to Old 
Faithful too long. Flagg Ranch, as a destination, allows people the 
opportunity to break this trip up if they are unwilling or unable to 
make the trip to Old Faithful in one day.
Economic Impacts on Local Communities
    The impacts of any alternative on economies beyond the gateway 
communities are generally negligible. Gateway communities are affected 
in different alternatives by entrance closure or area closure (D and 
F), or

[[Page 80916]]

closure to snowmobiles and change in allowable modes of motorized 
access (B, C and G). Economically, West Yellowstone is most affected 
through the range of alternatives because that community is most 
directly tied to access via snowmobile. Not coincidentally, the West 
Entrance to Old Faithful is the most adversely impacted oversnow route 
in the three-unit area.
Consistency With Land Use Plans, Policies or Controls for Adjacent 
Lands
    Impacts on adjacent lands for all alternatives are described on 
pages 434-474 in the FEIS. There are concerns about how any reduction 
in snowmobile use within the three parks would translate into increased 
use on national forest lands in particular. The Forest Service, a 
cooperating agency, indicates that alternative G could result in 
conditions that would necessitate amendments to forest plans because 
snowmobile use on those lands is at the highest tolerance level 
permissible. My determination is that use on national forests is likely 
not to increase.\17\ Further, the forests have provided no convincing 
evidence or monitoring data to support their concerns, or to support 
that the need to revisit their forest plans does not already exist. I 
consider that the period of three years being allowed for a transition 
to snowcoaches only in the parks will facilitate the monitoring of 
recreational snowmobile use on public lands (national forests) in the 
Greater Yellowstone Area. I agree that such monitoring is necessary to 
develop a baseline for gauging the impacts of future winter management 
changes on public lands, and resources therein. Therefore, this is part 
of the rationale for allowing a three-year phase in period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ I believe the analysis indicating that decreased use in the 
parks would result in decreased use generally in the Greater 
Yellowstone Area, thereby reducing use on forests not increasing it, 
is sound.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Potentially affected States and counties were involved as 
cooperating agencies in the preparation of this EIS (see pages 16-18 in 
the FEIS). Through the process, these entities identified no issues 
concerning conflicts with any land use plans, policies or controls that 
may exist. Any such impacts are inferred in the analysis (FEIS pages 
434-435). Concerns expressed by the cooperators are twofold. On the one 
hand, they are concerned about increased use on adjacent lands 
resulting from the parks' decision, and how it would affect other 
public lands, wildlife habitat, and currently groomed snowmobile trail 
systems. On the other hand, they are concerned that the decision would 
devastate local economies by drastically reducing snowmobile use and 
visitation to the area. These positions are in conflict. My assessment 
is: first, that snowmobile use is likely to decrease, or at least not 
increase, on adjacent lands; and second, that snowcoach access to the 
parks will invigorate local entrepreneurs in marketing a special 
(albeit different) park experience. As explained elsewhere, the effect 
of alternative G on local economies is expected to be of short-term 
duration--mitigated by provisions for implementation over time and 
allowing communities and businesses to adapt.
Public Comments on the Draft EIS
    Comments on the draft EIS are discussed explicitly in the public 
participation section of this record of decision. The vast majority of 
the comments did not substantively address the merits of the EIS 
analysis. Many comments assisted NPS in clarifying or otherwise 
improving the disclosure of impacts in the FEIS (as documented in FEIS 
Volume III). Most comments (94%) expressed some preference for winter 
use management that resembled some alternative evaluated in the draft 
EIS. I wish to make clear that, although it is not the primary 
rationale for this decision, the public expression of preference is 
certainly a factor that I considered. The public's preference in the 
large body of comment was evenly divided between those who clearly 
wished for continued snowmobile use and those who felt that snowmobiles 
should not be allowed in the parks. Four percent of those who commented 
indicated there should be no motorized use or grooming of winter routes 
in the parks. The overwhelming negative reaction to the preferred 
alternative B in the draft EIS, which would have plowed the road from 
West Yellowstone to Old Faithful, was a factor in considering a new 
preferred alternative for the final EIS.

Findings

Park Values and Resources
    The use of snowmobiles and snowplanes at present levels harms the 
integrity of the resources and values of these three parks, and so 
constitutes an impairment of the resources and values, which is not 
permissible under the NPS Organic Act. In YNP, the impairment is the 
result of the impacts from snowmobile use on air quality, wildlife, the 
natural soundscape, and opportunities for enjoyment of the park by 
visitors. In GTNP, the impairment is the result of the impacts from 
snowmobile and snowplane use on the natural soundscape and 
opportunities for enjoyment of the park by visitors. In the Parkway, 
the impairment is the result of impacts form snowmobile use on air 
quality, the natural soundscape, and opportunities for enjoyment of the 
park.
    Under the NPS Organic Act, the NPS may not allow the impairment of 
park resources and values, and when there is an impairment, the NPS 
must eliminate it. The combination of actions provided for in this 
Record of Decision will eliminate the impairment in GTNP following the 
winter of 2001-2002, and in YNP and the Parkway following the winter of 
2002.
    We have also determined that the snowmobile use now occurring is 
inconsistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (in the case of 
YNP and the Parkway), Executive Orders 11644 and 11989, the NPS's 
general snowmobile regulations, and NPS management objectives for the 
parks. We have determined that the snowplane use occurring in GTNP is 
inconsistent with Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 and NPS management 
objectives for the parks.
    We have determined that the snowcoach use that will occur in YNP 
and the Parkway under this decision, and the snowmobile use that will 
continue in GTNP in the winter of 2002-2003 and thereafter is 
consistent with the requirements of Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 
and the NPS's general snowmobile regulations.
    There is no current means of mitigation, aside from a reduction of 
numbers unsupported by a carrying capacity analysis, that assures 
recreation snowmobile use impacts could be reduced, predictably and 
soon, to a level that does not impair and adversely impact these 
resources and values.
    Snowmobile use for official administrative or emergency purposes in 
the three park units is specifically allowed under the regulations and 
executive orders cited herein as the basis for the decision. Incidental 
amounts of snowmobile use in GTNP for purposes of winter access to 
inheld private lands or to adjacent public lands as provided under the 
establishment legislation for the park.\18\ These are not recreation 
uses, per se, that are the subject of analysis in the FEIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ EO 11644, sections (3) and (4), and 16 USC 406d-1, et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clean, quiet and odorless snowmobiles are not available at present. 
Even with technical advances in snowmobiles, the impacts of snowmobile 
use on wildlife, especially ungulates using groomed routes,

[[Page 80917]]

constitutes disturbance and harassment at a time when individual 
animals are particularly challenged for survival. The continued use of 
snowmobiles as provided in the alternatives studied other than 
alternative G is found to be inconsistent with the health and integrity 
of resources existing in the three park units. Continued use hinders 
the enjoyment of resources and values for which the parks were created, 
most notably natural soundscapes, clean and clear air, and undisturbed 
wildlife in a natural setting.
    The social and economic impacts of the elimination of most 
snowmobile use in the parks can be mitigated to a high degree by 
providing oversnow access using mass transit snowcoaches. Considering 
the analysis of alternatives, there is a clear magnitude of difference 
between the impacts of snowmobiles and the impacts of snowcoaches on 
natural resource values and the opportunities to enjoy them. This 
rationale supports the selection of alternative G.
    The use of groomed routes by snowcoaches adversely affects 
wildlife, air quality, natural soundscapes, and the opportunity to 
enjoy those values, as disclosed in the FEIS, although the adverse 
effects are negligible to minor. These impacts are found not to impair 
those values and opportunities. This is due to the overall decrease in 
impacts to a level described as negligible--with greatly decreased 
volumes of traffic and consequent decreases in odor, noise, and 
pollutants. The area within the three park units that would be 
available for use without audible motorized sound would be maximized 
using snowcoach access. An NPS managed mass transit snowcoach system 
would assertively implement available technologies for further reducing 
the amount of sound and pollution created. It would assertively 
implement schedules and strategies and controls for minimizing impacts 
on wildlife due to use of groomed surfaces. Additionally, because 
operators of snowcoaches will be familiar with park roadways and 
trained in appropriate techniques for mitigating the effects of 
vehicle-wildlife encounters the potential for wildlife harassment will 
be minimized.
    Skiing and other nonmotorized uses adversely affect wildlife, 
particularly bison, elk, moose, and bighorn sheep. Backcountry use, in 
particular, stresses these ungulates at a time when their energy 
reserves are low. In areas adjacent to high use nonmotorized routes 
animals may adapt to regular passage by humans using a predictable 
route. Nonmotorized trail use therefore has fewer adverse impacts than 
does unrestricted backcountry use. Therefore by limiting nonmotorized 
use in certain winter habitats to designated routes, adverse impacts of 
nonmotorized use are suitably reduced. Where the impacts of 
nonmotorized travel on wildlife cannot be suitably mitigated through 
route restrictions critical winter range will be closed. With this 
mitigation, limited nonmotorized use is found to be consistent with 
park resources and values, and it facilitates their enjoyment. FEIS 
alternative G closes certain important winter wildlife habitat to 
nonmotorized use, and limits use in other areas to designated trails 
and routes only.
Safety and Access
    The analysis shows that impacts on safety of visitors and employees 
are associated with snowmobile use. It is found that current use by 
snowmobiles represents a risk to health and safety. This risk is 
mitigated to the highest degree in alternative G. Risks associated with 
NPS managed snowcoach systems are negligible, since there would be 
greater controls over speed, time of operation, driver training and 
experience, and the volume of traffic on the route. In addition, this 
system offers access to the public that is equivalent in numbers to 
current use. In doing so, the parks would be accessible to a larger 
population of young, elderly, and disabled visitors.

Economic Impacts on Local Communities

    It has been found that snowmobile use as currently constituted, and 
as evaluated in the range of alternatives, adversely impacts and 
impairs park resources and values. Therefore, the use must be 
discontinued in order to meet the primary mandates, regulations and 
policies of the national park service. This has clear economic impacts 
on all the local, gateway communities, permittees and concessions that 
are highly dependent upon winter snowmobile use in the parks. However, 
the greatest impact on these communities would be closing the parks to 
winter motorized access entirely. Alternative G offers an opportunity 
for the same level of access that currently exists, while improving 
opportunities for people who cannot or choose not to ride snowmobiles. 
It is found that the cessation in the future of plowing a portion of 
the southern route into YNP, in addition to improving safety, would 
create additional opportunities for people to enjoy a destination 
winter area (Flagg Ranch) using oversnow transport.
    Due to economic impacts (as disclosed in the FEIS), measures are 
incorporated into the implementation features of alternative G to allow 
communities, permittees and concessioners time to adapt. Considering 
the economic impacts, three years are to be allowed for conversion to 
an NPS managed snowcoach system, and existing concession contracts will 
be honored until they expire. During the first year, snowmobile use 
will be continue under existing regulations. During the second year of 
implementation, snowmobile use will be subject to daily limits based on 
historic peak day use, to avoid the occurrence of days with even higher 
use than in the past. Then, one more year of snowmobile use, at 
approximately 50% of current levels, will be allowed. This affords 
snowmobile operators three years to take advantage of existing 
technology for snowcoaches, to realize the investment they presently 
have in snowmobiles, and to market new opportunities. NPS will produce 
an implementation plan as soon as possible to develop the details of 
snowcoach transport in the parks. This plan will be developed in 
coordination with gateway communities, concessioners and permittees in 
order to insure successful implementation of the alternative. NPS will 
also work with these entities to develop and implement a new marketing 
strategy for winter recreation in the parks.
    Additional measures will be used to reduce impacts to the degree 
possible during the interim period. This mitigation includes, but is 
not limited to, the following measures (see also the actions and 
mitigation sections of the decision, above).
    During the interim period, snowmobile and snowplane use will be 
monitored and managed in a manner that prevents or mitigates local 
impacts to the greatest extent practicable;
    Ranger patrols will be increased to facilitate monitoring as well 
as detection and on-the-spot handling of impacts particularly for 
wildlife disturbance.
    Park concessions will be required to mitigate impacts on air 
quality by selling only bio-fuels and synthetic lubes inside the park;
    Snowmobile tour guides shall receive additional training in 
appropriate methods of avoiding wildlife disturbance, and park 
personnel will assertively provide similar information to all other 
users. Prohibit late night oversnow travel.
    In the third year of the phase-in period, all recreation snowmobile 
users in YNP must be accompanied by a permitted guide and travel in 
groups of

[[Page 80918]]

no more than 11 (including the guide). The superintendent will be 
authorized to also require groups and guides in GTNP and the Parkway.
    A phase-in period of three years is necessary to allow the creation 
and implementation of a functional mass transit system using 
snowcoaches.

Measures Taken To Avoid Environmental Harm

    The focus of the EIS analysis is to improve environmental 
conditions relative to those which exist due to current use and 
management. Alternative G best improves environmental conditions, as 
demonstrated in the FEIS and this decision rationale. Therefore, the 
features of selected alternative G and the mitigation that applies with 
this decision are construed as measures taken to avoid environmental 
harm. If future monitoring, as provided in this decision, indicates 
that impacts are too great to sustain additional use, or that 
impairment occurs, it will be appropriate to implement further 
management changes. Monitoring plans will describe standards or 
thresholds of impact, and management actions that will be taken if 
standards are not met. See the monitoring section of the decision, 
above.

Public Involvement

Scoping

    The NPS accepted public scoping comments from April 14 to July 18, 
1998. Scoping brochures were mailed to about 6,000 interested parties, 
and 12 public meetings were held throughout the GYA and in Idaho, 
Montana, and Wyoming. In addition to local area and regional meetings, 
the NPS held four national meetings in Salt Lake City, Denver, 
Minneapolis, and Washington D.C. About 2,000 comment letters were 
received (about 1,200 of these were form letters), from which about 
15,000 discrete comments were obtained. Scoping respondents included 
businesses; private and nonprofit organizations; local, state and 
federal agencies; and the public at large. Comments were received from 
46 states and several foreign countries.

Summary of Public Scoping Comment

    Comments received during scoping cover a full range of topics 
including issues, concerns, analysis questions, procedural questions, 
general opinions, and requests. Comments were sorted into the 
categories shown in Table 2, pages 22-24 in the FEIS .
    The NPS addressed all comments received in one of two ways: (1) 
Either they were analyzed in detail through the development of an 
alternative or as a possible impact of winter use; or (2) they were not 
analyzed further based on the rationale presented in FEIS Volume II, 
Appendix A. The NPS classified comments as major issues or concerns to 
be analyzed in detail based on relevance to the decision to be made. 
The following section, Major Issues, describes in greater detail those 
comment categories considered relevant. Issues or Concerns Not 
Addressed in the Plans/EIS describes specific types of comments not 
carried forward for in-depth analysis, and the rationale for their 
dismissal.

Major Issues

    This section summarizes the major issues that relate to the purpose 
and need for action for the future of winter use in the three NPS 
units. These issues parallel the existing conditions identified in the 
FEIS in the purpose and need for action. While common concerns exist 
among the issues, they are categorized for purposes of analysis and 
alternative formulation. Because the decision regarding the future of 
winter use in the GYA is largely programmatic, relevant issues are 
those that bear on: (1) Winter programs that might be necessary to 
address existing circumstances and achieve desired conditions; and (2) 
the effects of those programs. An issue is defined as a point of 
contention about the specific possible environmental effect of a 
specific management action or program. Generally, comments on the DEIS 
about the details of implementing a program are not considered major 
issues. Implementation details will be important during future site-
specific analyses under the new plan.
    Another opportunity for public involvement is the ability to 
comment on the DEIS. No new major issues were identified as a result of 
public comments on the DEIS. FEIS Volume III contains the analysis of 
public comments on the DEIS, and responses to the comments. Major 
issues are described below.

Visitor Use and Access

    Various user groups contend that the national parks offer either 
too much or not enough of various types of use. Some people are 
concerned that the parks do not offer an adequate range of winter 
experiences and will not be able to respond to future winter recreation 
demand. Others suggested that winter experiences should include 
dogsledding, off-road motorized play areas, and increases in both 
groomed motorized and nonmotorized trails. Other people voiced concerns 
about too much winter use, suggesting that YNP should be closed in part 
or altogether, for the winter season. Because of the amount of use 
relative to the available facilities, both ski and snowmobile use 
sometimes occurs on the same groomed surface. This adds to the 
perception of too much use, and leads to other issues relating to 
visitor experience and safety. Many people contend that motorized use 
has greatly affected opportunities for nonmotorized use in the 
surrounding GYA, displacing cross-country skiing and other nonmotorized 
recreation to the parks. Another aspect of the issue relates to the 
affordability of winter access, and access for disabled, and old and 
young visitors. Some argue for increased availability of motorized 
access (via snowmobile in particular) to serve these access needs. 
Another issue is the high cost of winter access to the parks.

Visitor Experience

    Expectations for quality winter recreation experiences are 
different for different user groups. This raises contention between 
groups for which quiet, solitude, and clean air needs conflict with the 
impacts of snowmobiles, especially when facilities for these different 
groups are in close proximity to each other. Nonmotorized users are 
easily affected or displaced by the sight, sound, and odor of 
snowmobiles. While skiing generally does not affect the quality of the 
snowmobiling experience, there are safety issues associated with slower 
traffic on groomed surfaces used by higher speed vehicles. In addition 
the quality of the visitor experience can be affected by the number of 
available support facilities (such as parking lots or rest rooms), the 
extent to which facilities are crowded, and the availability of 
information.

Human Health and Safety

    Four primary health and safety issues were identified regarding 
winter visitor use:
     The effect of motorized vehicular emissions and noise on 
employees who are required to travel or work in areas with high traffic 
levels. Visitors may be subjected to some of the same impacts.
     Speed limits and the frequency of motor vehicle accidents 
and fatalities, and the number of nighttime collisions involving 
wildlife that often result in severe injury or fatality to both animals 
and people.
     Avalanche hazards.
     Safety risks where different modes of winter transport are 
co-located or in close proximity, like the CDST where

[[Page 80919]]

wheeled-vehicles and snowmobiles share the highway right-of-way.

Social and Economic Issues

    Many comments reflected the effect of changes in parks management 
actions on local communities. Local businesses provide services to 
visitors near both parks, and many local economies rely, in part, on 
revenues from parks visitors in the winter. Concern was voiced that 
eliminating oversnow travel and snowmobiles in particular or closing an 
entrance to a park during the winter could have a detrimental effect on 
local economies. Other commenters stated that concern for parks' 
resources should be elevated above economics.

Natural Resources

    Impacts of winter use on natural resources revolve around three 
major issues.
     The impact of groomed surfaces and their use on wildlife: 
Over the last several years, bison have been removed from the 
population because they have migrated from YNP to state and private 
lands during the winter. Some people commented on the effect that 
backcountry skiing might have on wildlife, particularly the 
displacement of large ungulates from important winter range.
     Air quality: The effect of snowmobile emissions on air 
quality was identified as a concern with respect to health, natural 
resources, and aesthetic and wilderness values. For example, on high 
snowmobile use days in YNP, the visual evidence and odor of snowmobile 
exhaust is apparent in some areas. The effect of hydrocarbons, carbon 
monoxide, and particulate matter emitted by snowmobiles on water 
quality was also a concern.
     Oversnow vehicle sound: The sound levels of snowmobiles 
and snowcoaches were raised as issues with regard to aesthetics and 
wilderness values. For example, on some days it is difficult for most 
visitors to travel to an area in YNP where snowmachines cannot be 
heard. For this reason some people question whether the use of 
snowmobiles and snowcoaches is appropriate in the national parks. Other 
people state that the sound of snowmachines has no impact on their 
ability to enjoy the parks.

Issues or Concerns Not Addressed in the Plans/EIS

    Scoping issues and concerns that were not addressed in the EIS are 
listed below. The rationale for their dismissal may be found in the 
FEIS on pages 26-28. Essentially the reason for dismissal is that the 
issue is being dealt with in another analysis, is beyond the scope of 
the purpose and need for action, or is a matter that is governed by 
procedural laws (like the National Environmental Policy Act--NEPA).
     Privatization
     Summer/Winter Use Comparisons
     Wildlife Carrying Capacities
     Land Use
     Economic Effects: Costs
     EIS Process
     Cooperating Agencies
     NEPA and NPS Policy
     Scientific Methods and Data

Federal Register Notices

    A notice of intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal 
Register on April 15, 1998, officially beginning the scoping process. A 
notice of availability for the Winter Use Plan and Draft Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) for Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks 
and the John D. Rockefeller Jr., Memorial Parkway appeared in the 
Federal Register, August 15, 1999. The notice indicated that the public 
comment due date was November 15. The comment period was extended 
twice, once to December 1, 1999, and again to December 15, 1999. 
Notices of these deadline extensions were published in the Federal 
Register. The notice of availability for the FEIS was published on 
October 20, 2000.

Distribution of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

    In August 1999, postcards were mailed to 6000 persons notifying 
them of the impending release of the DEIS. Approximately 4,000 draft 
documents and summaries were mailed to interested parties during 
September 1999. In addition, documents were mailed to agencies, 
businesses, organizations, and public officials who had either 
requested the document or were generally interested in the management 
of winter use in the parks.

Public Meetings/Hearings

    Sixteen public meetings using an open house format were held early 
in the scoping period ranging from April through July of 1998. Meetings 
were held in each of the five gateway communities to the three park 
units. Other meetings were held within the region at Dubois and Casper, 
Wyoming, Billings and Bozeman, Montana, and Boise, Ashton and 
Pocatello, Idaho. Meetings outside the region were held at Denver, 
Colorado, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Salt Lake City, Utah, and Washington, 
D.C. Public hearings to solicit public comment on the DEIS were held 
during the month of October 1999 in the following cities: Idaho Falls, 
Idaho; West Yellowstone and Livingston, Montana; Cody and Jackson, 
Wyoming; and Denver, Colorado. The proceedings of each hearing were 
transcribed and entered into the record. An average of 45 persons spoke 
at each hearing.

Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

    Over 48,600 pieces of correspondence were received in response to 
the DEIS. Correspondence consisted of individual letters, form letters, 
e-mails, telephone calls, and hearing presentations. This body of 
comment is summarized, categorized, indexed and responded to in Volume 
III (parts one, two, and three) of the FEIS. Part one includes the 
summary, individual letters and specific responses to the contents of 
the letters. Part two includes the variety of form letters received 
(separate letters having the same content) and specific responses to 
their content. Part three contains the results of compiling all 
comments from all sources, categorizing and summarizing them, and then 
providing a response to each. This approach was considered necessary 
owing to the extreme volume of public comments on the DEIS. Following 
is a brief analysis of recurrent themes in the body of comment, and how 
NPS responds to them.
    Many commenters expressed consternation about the lack of a ``no 
snowmobiling'' alternative in the DEIS, and suggested that impact 
descriptions and data to support the EIS and the preferred alternative 
were not detailed enough. NPS responds first, that a ``no 
snowmobiling'' alternative was provided in the DEIS--alternative G. 
Secondly, in some cases the NPS has added information to support the 
analysis of impacts in the FEIS. Additionally, NPS is engaged in 
programmatic planning, rather than project-specific planning; therefore 
analysis and data collection have been conducted on a reconnaissance 
level. Further, where data is lacking or unavailable even at that 
level, CEQ regulations provide for the decision process to continue 
based on best available data and professional application of credible 
methods.
    Many people stated they could not support any of the DEIS 
alternative ``mixes.'' A large number of comments levied criticism on 
the preferred alternative--to the point that constructive comments on 
the other alternatives were greatly lacking. Three additional 
``alternatives'' were proposed: Revised Alternative E (in various forms 
provided by cooperating agencies and the Blue Ribbon Coalition),

[[Page 80920]]

the Citizens' Solution (provided by a consortium of conservation 
groups), and the Natural Regulation Alternative (provided by The Fund 
for Animals).\19\ All such comments were read as the decisions that 
people would like to see the NPS make, based upon their opinions about 
impacts and their interpretations about laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Most features of Revised Alternative E and The Citizens' 
Solution were covered within the DEIS range of alternatives. Certain 
features were either considered to be implementation details or 
outside the scope of analysis. The Natural Regulation Alternative, 
by advocating no motorized access or groomed routes, was considered 
outside the scope of analysis--although some alternatives close 
sections of the parks to motorized use, and adaptive management 
could conceivably result in other sections being closed over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The body of comment included little substantive information beyond 
that disclosed in the DEIS, and did not demonstrate that an alternative 
(feature) did not belong in the range of choices available for the 
decision-maker. Given the ability of a decision-maker to mix features 
from the FEIS range of alternatives, much of the criticism in the 
public comment does not apply to the analysis. Regarding the great 
amount of comment on the preferred alternative, and perceived lack of 
justification for it, the NPS responds by saying that such criticism is 
more appropriately applied to the decision. In fact, the NPS changed 
the preferred alternative between draft and final EIS whereupon most of 
these comments no longer apply.
    Some commenters said that the desired conditions or objectives were 
too general, and that there is no demonstrated need for management 
change. In effect, such comments missed the real issues that are 
conveyed by statements of existing conditions. The NPS responds by 
explaining that the EIS is programmatic, leading to a plan, which is 
general in nature. In addition issues regarding resource impacts, 
health and safety, and visitor experience are documented sufficiently 
by the NPS to indicate the need for major management changes supported 
by a new plan.
    Given the scope of analysis, the NPS developed alternatives 
(alternative plans) as possible ways to proceed from the current 
condition toward the desired condition. The NPS maintains that public 
access during the winter is an appropriate objective to be achieved. 
Accommodating a variety of recreational uses is also valid. In each 
case, activities must be evaluated in terms of impacts on parks' 
resources and values, health and safety, and visitor enjoyment. 
Alternatives that vary the location, amount and proximity of uses are 
needed to assess the relative impact or change from the current 
condition. The EIS expresses impacts or changes in terms that allow 
people to understand how each alternative satisfies the purpose and 
need for action. It is unreasonable to expect that all alternatives 
would address all aspects of the purpose and need equally, or that all 
alternatives worthy of consideration would have no impacts. In the 
final analysis, the NPS concludes that the purpose and need for action 
articulated in the EIS is appropriate, and that the range of 
alternatives considered in detail is adequate. See Comparison of 
Alternatives at the end of this decision document.

Public Response to the FEIS

    The FEIS was published and available to the public in hardcopy and 
on the internet on October 10, 2000. Summaries of the FEIS were mailed 
to about 46,500 interested parties, and about 400 copies of the FEIS 
were mailed at that time. The public was able to provide comments up 
until October 31. Due to the potential public controversy of the 
selection of alternative G as the preferred alternative in the FEIS, 
the former Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks agreed 
to solicit public comment on that document. About 10,970 comment 
documents were received, including letters, e-mails, and postcards. 
Comments were read and evaluated regarding their content. A comment 
summary is attached to this decision (Attachment B). Generally, there 
were more respondents favoring elimination of snowmobiles from the 
parks than those who support continued snowmobiling. State and local 
governments and most business interests who responded favor continued 
snowmobiling.

Consultation

Cooperating Agencies

    The details of cooperation with other agencies are provided on 
pages 16-17 and Appendix A of the FEIS. In summary, State and county 
governments surrounding the GYA requested and were granted cooperating 
agency status (40 CFR 1501.6) in December 1997 and January 1998. The 
NPS requested that the US Forest Service become a cooperating agency 
because of possible impacts on surrounding national forests from 
changes in the parks' winter use management; and the USFS acceded. 
Agreements were developed to assign formal roles in the EIS process and 
establish expectations. The NPS held its first meeting with the 
cooperating agencies on February 13, 1998. Appendix A in the FEIS 
(Volume II) further discusses coordination with cooperating agencies.
    Through the EIS process, NPS made it clear that veto or decision-
making power does not accompany cooperating agency status. As the lead 
agency charged with carrying out the NEPA process under Sec. 102(2)(c) 
of NEPA, the NPS retains sole decision-making authority over the EIS 
and its process.
    There were a number of comments on the DEIS relating to the 
designation of cooperating agencies. Many people objected to the 
inclusion of the counties in particular, feeling that their involvement 
biased the decision-making process and the EIS; others felt that the 
NPS did not involve or listen to the cooperating agencies. Most 
cooperators stated that there was insufficient time or information to 
provide adequate input to the NPS, and that the NPS had not met the 
terms of the signed memoranda of agreement. Conversely, many of the 
cooperating agencies commented that they had provided good information 
that the NPS did not consider or incorporate. A table that illustrates 
the extent to which the NPS interacted with cooperating agencies is 
contained in Appendix A of the FEIS.
    The NPS believes that much of the criticism from cooperating 
agencies stems from the time frame for producing this EIS, which is 
noted in the cooperating agreements, a lack of experience, and a 
fundamentally different perspective on the issues. Few federal agencies 
have experience dealing with such a large number of cooperating 
agencies on a single NEPA project. With the exception of the USFS and 
the State of Montana, few of the cooperating agencies have experience 
producing environmental impact statements, and the analyses necessary 
in their areas of special expertise.\20\ \21\ NPS believes it met all 
of its responsibilities under the cooperating agreements to the best of 
its ability under the highly constraining time frame.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The CEQ definition of special expertise is: ``statutory 
responsibility, agency mission, or related program experience.'' (40 
CFR 1508.26)
    \21\ Montana has a state law governing environmental policy: 
Montana Environmental Policy Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

American Indian Tribes

    The details of consultation with American Indian Tribes are 
provided in the FEIS on pages 18-20. To summarize: NPS is committed to 
recognizing the past and present existence of American Indians in the 
region, and the traces of their use as an important part of the

[[Page 80921]]

cultural environment to be preserved and interpreted. NPS initiated 
consultation along with scoping in May 1998 in accordance with the 
Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government 
Relations with Native American Tribal Governments'' and in compliance 
with a variety of laws, federal regulations, and agency management 
policies and directives. Eight tribes were identified as being 
traditionally affiliated with the GYA.
    By April 1999, an additional 13 contemporary tribes had been 
recognized by YNP and GTNP as traditionally affiliated with the GYA. 
The NPS notified the 21 affiliated tribes of an affiliated tribal 
consultation meeting to be held at YNP on May 20, at which the Plans/
EIS would be one of the planning projects and issues discussed. On 
April 23, NPS faxed invitation letters to the tribal consultation 
meeting, and four days later the NPS mailed copies of the draft 
alternatives to each tribe. During the week of May 3, the NPS made 
follow-up telephone calls to each of the tribes, to confirm receipt of 
the draft alternatives and encourage participation in the affiliated 
tribal consultation meeting on May 20.
    At that meeting, tribal representatives voiced concerns that 
oversnow motorized vehicles, the grooming of road and trail surfaces, 
and the movement of people would negatively impact YNP's bison 
population. The affiliated tribes received copies of the DEIS for 
review and comment in mid-September 1999, and were notified of six 
public hearings on the draft plans in late-September 1999. On October 
6, 1999, members of the Assiniboine and Sioux (Fort Peck), Cheyenne 
River Sioux, Confederated Salish and Kootenai, Crow, Lac Courte 
Oreilles, Nez Perce, Rosebud Sioux, the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, 
and organizations met with Yellowstone and Grand Teton staff to discuss 
the Winter Use Plans as part of fall 1999 government-to-government 
tribal consultation meetings.
    The NPS will continue to consult with representatives of affiliated 
tribes as actions resulting from this plan are implemented. The goal of 
consultation is to insure that the affiliated tribes' interests and 
concerns are adequately addressed, as well as to develop and accomplish 
future programs in a way that respects the beliefs, traditions, and 
other cultural values of the American Indian tribes who have ancestral 
ties to the area.

State Historic Preservation Offices

    In October 1995, a programmatic agreement was developed among the 
National Conference of State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), the 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council) and the NPS. In 
accordance with the agreement and pursuant to Section 106 of the 
National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470(f)), consultation 
with the Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho SHPOs and the Council was 
initiated in May 1998. The NPS sent copies of the scoping brochure (May 
1998) and the draft preliminary winter use alternatives (December 1998) 
to the SHPOs and the Council. In accordance with their request, the NPS 
continued to consult with the Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho SHPOs and the 
Council regarding actions described in the Winter Use Plans/EIS that 
may affect cultural resources (FEIS Appendix E). The NPS mailed copies 
of the Draft EIS to each SHPO and the Council for review and comment. 
Before completion of the FEIS, the NPS contacted the SHPOs of all three 
states directly, and all offices stated that they had no comments on 
the DEIS and saw no need for further consultation.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

    The settlement agreement under which the winter use plan and EIS 
were produced also required the NPS to prepare a biological assessment 
(BA) and request formal consultation with the USFWS pursuant to section 
7(a)(2) of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2) and its implementing 
regulations. To comply, on February 16, 2000 the NPS requested from the 
USFWS an updated list of all federally protected threatened, 
endangered, proposed, or candidate species that might occur in the 
affected area (FEIS Appendix D). Because winter use is highly 
controversial, and the NPS was aware of the potential for considerable 
post-draft changes, it elected not to initiate consultation at the time 
the DEIS was issued. Instead, a BA was prepared for the FEIS preferred 
alternative, and subsequently submitted to USFWS on July 5, 2000.\22\ 
On October 25, 2000, USFWS provided a letter concurring with NPS' 
determination in the biological assessment that implementation of the 
winter use plans as proposed is not likely to affect threatened or 
endangered species or migratory birds in the action area. The letter 
notes the coordination between NPS and USFS through the Greater 
Yellowstone Coordinating Committee which resulted in a commitment to 
monitor possible but unanticipated impacts on grizzly bears as a result 
of the action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Actions taken in accordance with Endangered Species 
Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and 
Conference Activities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 
March 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternatives Considered

Alternative Development

    Alternative development is described in detail on pages 31-32 and 
in Appendix A of the FEIS. The alternatives for the Winter Use Plans 
and Environmental Impact Statement for Yellowstone National Park (YNP), 
Grand Teton National Park (GTNP) and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., 
Memorial Parkway (the Parkway) were formulated in response to the major 
issues and concerns raised through public and internal scoping. In 
addition to the scoping process, the National Park Service (NPS) and 
the cooperating agencies met in Idaho Falls, Idaho, for 3 days during 
October 1998 to formulate initial concepts for alternatives. Later, 
similar workshops were conducted with the staffs in both parks. For a 
complete discussion of the concepts generated during the workshops see 
FEIS Appendix A.
    The NPS planning team evaluated the concepts in terms of their 
responsiveness to the major issues and concerns, the decision to be 
made, and the purpose and need for the Winter Use Plans. The concepts 
were also evaluated against their adherence to current law, park 
management guidelines, and NPS mandates and policies. Lastly, each 
concept was evaluated for its economic and technical feasibility. The 
concepts that best met the above criteria were packaged into the range 
of alternatives discussed below. Each alternative proposed considers a 
different means of achieving the desired condition of the parks in the 
winter while minimizing impacts to park resources.

Scope of Analysis in the FEIS

    The scope of analysis determines the range of alternatives to be 
considered. The analysis in the EIS is limited to recreation during the 
wintertime (about December 15 through March 15, annually). 
Geographically, the analysis is limited to recreation management within 
the boundaries of the three national park units.\23\ Recreational use 
considerations and supporting facilities

[[Page 80922]]

are limited to those that are technically possible at the present time 
or are feasible for development and implementation. The range of 
alternatives presents options for motorized and nonmotorized winter 
recreational use in the three park units considering reasonably 
expected technological improvements in emissions and sound of 
snowmachines. One alternative evaluates the impacts of current winter 
use (per the settlement agreement and CEQ regulations). In this 
instance, ``no action'' is interpreted as current management, which is 
appropriate for programmatic planning.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ As a matter of process under CEQ regulations, the impacts 
of park management that are known or suspected to occur at other 
times and places must be disclosed in the EIS. In this EIS, economic 
impacts outside park boundaries are disclosed in the socioeconomic 
impacts section. Physical and resource effects are disclosed in the 
sections on adjacent lands and cumulative impacts.
    \24\ Many commenters on the DEIS stated that the ``no action'' 
alternative must be ``no snowmobiling'', and that the court 
settlement showed that to be the appropriate course of action. The 
park service's interpretation of ``no action'' means no change in 
general management direction from the present. The settlement 
agreement did not include any concessions to claims by The Fund for 
Animals, nor did it remove any options within the park service's 
discretion for park management from the range of alternatives to be 
considered. In approving the settlement agreement, the court 
asserted that a comprehensive winter use EIS (in accordance with CEQ 
regulations) would be written.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternatives

Alternative A (No Action)

    This alternative reflects current use and management practices in 
the parks and meets the requirement for including a no action 
alternative in an EIS.\25\ Alternative A is a baseline for analysis and 
reflects existing conditions. Other alternatives are intended to 
improve the existing condition in one or more major issue areas. Issues 
associated with alternative A include visitor access difficulties, 
visitor experience conflicts, unsafe conditions, and resource impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ CEQ 40 Most Asked Questions, question number 3. Where an 
existing program is being evaluated, ``no action'' is ``no change in 
management.'' ``No action'' may be thought of as continuing with the 
present course of action until the action is changed. CEQ states 
that in such instances, ``to construct an alternative based on no 
management at all would be a useless academic exercise.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative B

    This alternative provides for a moderate range of affordable and 
appropriate winter visitor experiences. Key changes in recreational 
opportunities include: Plowing the road from West Yellowstone to Old 
Faithful to allow mass transit access by wheeled vehicles, moving the 
CDST to a year-round path from Moran to Flagg Ranch, and phasing out 
snowmobile use on Jackson Lake. Over the next 10 years, an advisory 
committee would make recommendations on phasing and implementing sound 
and emission standards for air quality and motor vehicle sound issues. 
By winter 2008(2009, strict emission and sound requirements would be 
required by all vehicles entering the parks. In addition this 
alternative emphasizes an adaptive approach to park resource 
management, which would allow the results of new and ongoing research 
and monitoring to be incorporated as it becomes available. Adaptive 
management increases the Park Service's ability to solve visitor access 
and experience issues and resource issues over time. Using the criteria 
stated within Executive Order (EO) 11644 (as amended) and its 
implementing regulation (36 CFR 2.18), monitoring results demonstrating 
disturbance to wildlife or damage to park resources would be cause to 
implement actions for mitigating these conditions (for example, closure 
to winter visitor use or trail restrictions).

Alternative C

    This alternative provides for maximum winter visitor opportunities 
for a range of park experiences, with emphasis on motorized recreation, 
while mitigating some natural resource impacts and safety concerns. Key 
changes in recreational opportunities include: plowing the road from 
West Yellowstone to Old Faithful to allow access by wheeled vehicles, 
providing a widened highway corridor to accommodate the CDST, and 
providing additional groomed trails for both motorized and nonmotorized 
uses. This alternative directly addresses issues that arose during 
scoping about potential impacts of management change on local 
economies. It shows how the range of winter opportunities could be 
preserved, applying mitigation primarily in the areas of air quality 
and sound impacts.

Alternative D

    This alternative emphasizes opportunities for visitor access to the 
unique winter aspects of the parks (for example, geysers, geothermal 
areas, wildlife, and scenic vistas), and protection of those qualities 
and natural resources by phasing in cleaner and quieter modes of 
travel. It focuses winter visitor activities near destination areas and 
gateway communities. Key changes in recreational opportunities include: 
eliminating motorized oversnow access to Yellowstone through its East 
Entrance, limiting snowmobile use in Grand Teton and the Parkway to the 
CDST and the Grassy Lake Road, eliminating wheeled-vehicle access from 
Colter Bay to Flagg Ranch to accommodate oversnow vehicles on the 
groomed highway surface, and eliminating snowmobile use on Jackson 
Lake. Emphasizing uses in different areas of the park minimizes 
conflicts between nonmotorized and motorized users, and addresses 
issues about visitor access and experience. Support facilities would 
have minimal amenities. In this alternative, visitor access routes and 
timing would be modified to provide safer conditions. Over time, issues 
regarding impacts on natural resources would be addressed, particularly 
in Grand Teton and on the east side of Yellowstone.

Alternative E

    This alternative emphasizes the protection of wildlife and other 
natural resources while allowing park visitors access to a range of 
winter recreation experiences. It uses an adaptive planning approach 
that allows the results of new and ongoing research and monitoring to 
be incorporated. Key changes to current recreational opportunities are: 
eliminating motorized oversnow access in Grand Teton and the Parkway 
except for use on the Grassy Lake Road and north of Flagg Ranch into 
Yellowstone, and eliminating all winter motorized use on Jackson Lake.
    This alternative addresses the full range of winter use issues in 
Yellowstone over time, but the current condition would prevail in the 
short term. Using the criteria stated in EO 11644 (as amended) and its 
implementing regulation (36 CFR 2.18), monitoring results demonstrating 
disturbance to wildlife or damage to park resources would be cause to 
implement actions for mitigating these conditions (for example, closure 
to snowmobile use). Alternative E calls for instituting an advisory 
committee to make recommendations about emission and sound standards. 
Local, county, state, and federal agencies as well as representatives 
from the snowmobile industry and environmental groups would participate 
on this committee. In Grand Teton and the Parkway, the full range of 
issues are addressed more immediately by limiting oversnow motorized 
use to the north end of the park, thus separating uses and eliminating 
most resource and visitor experience conflicts relating to snowmobile 
use.

Alternative F

    Alternative F emphasizes wildlife protection. Key changes in 
recreational opportunities include: eliminating all winter access to 
Yellowstone's interior through its North and West Entrances, 
eliminating motorized oversnow access in Grand Teton and the Parkway 
except

[[Page 80923]]

for use on the Grassy Lake Road and north of Flagg Ranch into 
Yellowstone, and eliminating all winter motorized use on Jackson Lake. 
For YNP this alternative addresses issues regarding protection of 
wildlife resources by focusing winter visitor activities near scenic 
areas in the eastern and southern portions of YNP. These areas are 
generally outside important winter range for large ungulate wildlife 
species. In Grand Teton and the Parkway, the full range of issues is 
addressed by limiting oversnow motorized use to the north end of the 
park, thus separating uses and eliminating most resource and visitor 
experience conflicts relating to snowmobile use.

Alternative G (The FEIS Preferred Alternative)

    This alternative emphasizes cleaner, quieter access to the parks 
using the technologies available today. It would allow oversnow access 
on all routes currently available via NPS-managed snowcoach only. Other 
key changes in recreational opportunities include: eliminating winter 
plowing on the Colter Bay to Flagg Ranch route, making Flagg Ranch a 
destination via oversnow transport, and eliminating all winter 
motorized use on Jackson Lake. This alternative addresses the full 
range of issues regarding safety, natural resource impacts, and visitor 
experience and access. It addresses the issues in a way that would make 
it necessary for local economies to adapt, and for visitors wanting 
motorized oversnow access to the parks to use snowcoaches rather than 
snowmobiles.

Comparison of Alternatives

    A comparison of alternative actions and the effects of the 
alternatives may be found in the FEIS beginning on page 66 (Tables 11 
and 12). The following rating process, using the FEIS data, is designed 
to illustrate--in a relative fashion--how each alternative meets the 
purpose and need for action. The purpose and need elements are 
equivalent to the impact topics assessed in the EIS. The rating scale 
is defined below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Rating                             Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
+4................................  Major beneficial impact
+3................................  Moderate beneficial impact
+2................................  Minor beneficial impact
+1................................  Identifiable but negligible
                                     beneficial impact
0.................................  Neutral level--no adverse impact, no
                                     beneficial impact
-1................................  Identifiable but negligible adverse
                                     impact
-2................................  Minor adverse impact
-3................................  Moderate adverse impact
-4................................  Major adverse impact
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With reference to the summarized impacts by alternative in the FEIS 
Chapter II (Table 12), a rating was assigned to each cell; e.g., where 
a major beneficial impact was disclosed, a +4 was assigned to that 
block. This represents a composite rating, and it should be noted that 
the detailed effects analysis represented by the rating is found in 
Chapter IV of the FEIS. The impact topics were weighted equally in this 
rating. All impact topics for all alternatives were rated in this 
fashion and then tabulated accordingly. A chart tabulating the ratings 
for major impact topics, or purpose and need elements, is shown below.
BILLING CODE 4310-0901-09P

[[Page 80924]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE00.050

This chart illustrates effects relative to a neutral environmental 
baseline reflecting an assessment of no identifiable adverse or 
beneficial effect.\26\ In the EIS, the defined environmental baseline 
is the existing condition, or alternative A (no action). Therefore, 
another data set and chart were generated to normalize the ratings 
relative to alternative A. That is, for each impact topic, the 
difference between the ratings for alternative A and the analogous 
ratings for each other alternative was gauged. For example, alternative 
A has a rating of +3 for visitor experience and F has a rating of -3 
for the same element; the relative difference (or the scale difference) 
between the two is -6.\27\ The resulting chart, below, shows 
alternative A as having no effects relative to the existing condition, 
and the other alternatives as having positive or negative effects 
compared to that base. The chart is an illustration of the extent to 
which each alternative meets the purpose and need for action, moving 
management from the existing to the desired condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ For such illustrations, the selection of a rating scale has 
many possible permutations. In this case, a scale showing positive 
and negative values was selected in order to better visualize the 
adverse impacts as opposed to the beneficial impacts of each 
alternative. An added feature of this scale is that it illustrates 
the existing condition, represented by Alternative A, as a condition 
to be improved in terms of ``purpose and need'' elements.
    \27\ This explains why the chart shows values up to +/-6, when 
the rating scale for effects is +/-4. The ``effects'' scale does not 
apply to the second chart; it is the relative change from 
alternative A that is now illustrated.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 80925]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE00.051

BILLING CODE 4310-01-C
    The purpose and need for action, as expressed in Chapter I of the 
FEIS, is illustrated fundamentally by describing the desired condition 
for the park units and comparing it to the existing condition. The 
descriptions are made in terms that relate to park resources and 
values, so that there is a direct relationship with mandates, 
regulations, executive orders and policies that direct NPS in managing 
resources and values. The relationship of existing condition to desired 
condition is developed through the most important resources and values 
within the context of winter use, as determined in the FEIS.
    The intent of actions proposed in the alternatives is to change 
management so that parks move from their existing condition toward the 
desired condition. Since various important resource elements make up 
the existing/desired condition relationship, it is expected that 
different alternatives designed to emphasize different concerns will 
respond differently to the overall purpose and need for action. As 
illustrated in the above chart, this is the case for winter use 
alternatives in the three park units.
    The above comparison chart illustrates the following 
generalizations. The existing condition is represented effectively by 
alternative A. Comparing other alternatives to alternative A, it is 
clear that all but alternative C respond positively, overall, to the 
purpose and need for action. Alternative E would improve the condition 
of all resources and values (and the opportunity to enjoy them), 
compared to alternative A, but the improvement overall would be of a 
fairly low magnitude while retaining the economic status quo. In 
alternative G impacts on all resources/values would be greatly 
decreased over existing conditions, and decreased overall to a greater 
extent than in any other alternative. This improvement would come 
primarily at the cost of economic impacts to local communities, also 
shown in the above chart. Balancing the positive and negative changes 
from the existing condition, alternatives D, B and F rank in that order 
below alternative G. All would adversely impact one or two of the four 
gateway communities while improving resource conditions. Alternative F 
would greatly improve resource conditions, while incurring long-term 
adverse impacts on opportunities to enjoy park resources and values, 
and on the winter economies of West Yellowstone and Gardiner, Montana.
    In showing the generalized and relative comparisons, the chart does 
not reflect analysis details. For example, although alternative F 
greatly improves

[[Page 80926]]

resource conditions overall, there would still be disturbance to 
wildlife associated with snowmobile use at certain times and certain 
places. Analysis details such as this apply to all alternatives. The 
reader is referred to Table 12 and Chapter IV in the FEIS, where the 
detailed analyses are summarized and presented respectively.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    Based on reduced impacts to human health and safety, air quality, 
visitor access, the natural soundscape and wildlife the NPS has 
identified alternative G as the environmentally preferred alternative. 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in its comments on both the 
Draft and Final EISs, similarly identifies this alternative as its 
environmentally preferred action.

Information Contact

    For more information on this decision or on the FEIS, please 
contact the offices of:

Karen Wade, National Park Service--Intermountain Region, 12795 West 
Alameda Parkway, Lakewood, CO 80225.
Steve Iobst, Grand Teton National Park, PO Drawer 170, Moose, WY 80312
Michael Finley, Yellowstone National Park, PO BOX 168, Yellowstone, WY 
82190.

Attachment A--Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plans

Standards, Methods, and Intensity by Management Zone

Monitoring and Adaptive Management

Introduction

    General resource inventory (and monitoring) and adaptive management 
are two approaches to assure the implementation and success of 
management actions. General resource inventory and monitoring in 
accordance with the National Park Service (NPS) 77 Resource Management 
Guidelines (NPS 1991) is a necessary part of the decision that proceeds 
from the Winter Use Final EIS (See Appendix I). Adaptive management is 
also a component of this decision.
    The two approaches are distinguished by the degree of uncertainty 
regarding the impacts to park values. Adaptive management is an 
appropriate approach when important information pertaining to natural 
resource and visitor use management is lacking, and there is a need to 
take immediate management action rather than to wait for additional 
information to be collected. It is a process of implementing management 
decisions as scientifically driven experiments that test predictions 
and assumptions in management plans, and using the resulting 
information to improve the plans. General resource monitoring is 
appropriate where standards exist either in laws, regulations or 
general management plans. Techniques must be available to measure 
conditions for effective comparison with the standard.
    Additionally, the National Parks Omnibus Act of 1998 requires a 
program of inventory and monitoring of National Park System resources 
to establish baseline information and to provide information on long-
term trends of the condition of national park system resources (16 
U.S.C. 5934). The service also must use the results of scientific 
research, including monitoring and inventory, in making decisions about 
the management of parks (16 U.S.C. 5936).
    The Winter Use EIS identifies information needs related to winter 
use as it may impact critical park values: air quality, natural quiet, 
wildlife, aquatic resources, and visitor experience. Both adaptive 
management and monitoring require standards, or thresholds, to 
establish baselines upon which to assess degradation to monitored park 
values. The initial identification of indicators, standards, methods 
and management responses that relate to critical values is located in 
FEIS appendix I. This is the basis for developing monitoring plans 
under authority of this decision.

Coordination and Responsibility Requirements

    Monitoring programs will be coordinated between Yellowstone and 
Grand Teton National Parks. The programs will function and be 
coordinated through the planning staffs of both parks. The development 
of annual plans and reports will be coordinated through the planning 
units, and the planning units will be responsible for delivering those 
products to management. Other park divisions will coordinate with 
planning, and provide resources for performing monitoring tasks.

Adaptive Management Program

    The essential first step when formulating an adaptive management 
strategy for the affected environment is to articulate the critical 
uncertainties, particularly where some information is known about a 
specific resource but conclusive evidence is currently unavailable. 
Based on current knowledge, a management scenario is then designed to 
test specific hypotheses relating to the critical uncertainties. 
Monitoring and evaluation strategies are then employed to evaluate 
outcomes relative to acceptable thresholds, and assist in the 
development of management alternatives. Monitoring within the framework 
of adaptive management is critical because of the uncertainty of 
predictions based on limited information. It provides systematic 
feedback for management, and allows adjustment of activities to 
mitigate unplanned or undesirable outcomes.
    A critical step in adaptive management involves the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Each time a new management proposal is 
evaluated the analysis must be documented by performing the appropriate 
level of NEPA compliance. Some actions, such as permanent road closures 
to protect wildlife or the construction of new facilities may require 
an additional site-specific NEPA analysis, which includes public 
scoping. Some actions might be administrative in nature, or be 
implementable through application of a NEPA categorical exclusion (Ref: 
NPS 12).
    The adaptive management process is shown schematically in Figure 1. 
Tables follow that prescribe monitoring standards, methods and proposed 
management actions for critical resources in each winter management 
zone. These are tables 12 through 22.

Monitoring Program

    General resource monitoring applies when adequate information 
exists to make informed management decisions. It is the process of 
collecting information to evaluate if the objectives of a management 
plan are being realized. General monitoring techniques (as opposed to 
monitoring conducted within the adaptive management framework) will be 
employed to assess impacts to public health and safety; geothermal 
features; water quality; threatened and endangered species; trumpeter 
swans and some aspects of visitor experience, including access and 
circulation. NPS-77, Natural Resources Management Guideline, will be 
used initially as a guide to monitoring specific resource areas. As new 
techniques are developed, or as commonly accepted procedures become 
available, monitoring protocols will change.
    Tables follow that prescribe monitoring standards, methods and 
possible management actions for critical resources in each winter 
management zone. These are tables 1 through 11.

[[Page 80927]]

Annual Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plans

    The overall objective for monitoring and adaptive management is to 
assess the long-term effects of management actions on park resources 
and values. Specific objectives accrue to each winter management zone 
(FEIS Table xx and Figures xx and xx). With reference to the following 
tables, for each management zone and for each resource of concern, 
monitoring indicators are presented. For each indicator, a standard 
either exists or is hypothesized (for adaptive management). Also, for 
each indicator a monitoring method and intensity is prescribed. 
Finally, management actions are indicated if the standards should be 
exceeded.
    Monitoring and adaptive management plans will be developed annually 
during workplanning and budget processes for the coming year. Plans 
will be developed through the planning staffs of both park units. 
Monitoring will be conducted on a sampling basis for the purpose of 
effective use of funds and personnel. The guiding principle for 
monitoring is to collect purposeful data--even if the amount is 
limited--rather than collecting a great deal of data that cannot be 
used statistically to arrive at valid conclusions. Therefore, 
monitoring plans will be brief and will cover the following items:
     The zones to be sampled, along with the indicators, 
standards, and methods to be used.
     Specific locations for monitoring, and the planned 
intensity--frequency of monitoring.
     A schedule (times) for data collection and submittal.
     The division or individual that is responsible for 
monitoring and reporting.
    It is expected that initial monitoring will be intensive, both in 
geographic and temporal extent, so that correlations can be made and 
results can be extrapolated. It is also expected that monitoring over 
time will become less intensive and arrive at a low intensity, 
maintenance level. Sampling schedules can vary from year to year, 
focusing on different areas within the park units. Monitoring plans 
will continue to be coordinated between Yellowstone and Grand Teton so 
that common methods are used, efficiency is achieved, and results are 
comparable. Annual monitoring reports will be written and publicized 
through the planning units of the two parks.

Annual Monitoring and Adaptive Management Reports

    Feedback for management is implicit in monitoring and adaptive 
management programs. In order for feedback to occur, data must be 
collected effectively in accordance with a plan. Data must be captured 
in an accessible information system, capable of evaluation and 
statistical manipulation. Then, evaluations must be put in meaningful 
terms for management. The requirement of a formal report is essential 
to meet this need. The report should be published to a standard that is 
appropriate for public consumption.
    Annual monitoring reports will be brief, and will meet the 
following requirements:
     Sum up the information collected during the year.
     Express conclusions relating to each management zone and 
indicator that was monitored.
     Extrapolate the conclusions to other areas, when possible 
and appropriate.
     State the need for applying management actions based on 
monitoring.
     Make recommendations for changes in monitoring locations, 
protocols, techniques or thresholds that should be considered in the 
monitoring plan for the following year.
BILLING CODE 4310-01-P

[[Page 80928]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE00.052


[[Page 80929]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE00.053


[[Page 80930]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE00.054


[[Page 80931]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE00.055


[[Page 80932]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE00.056


[[Page 80933]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE00.057


[[Page 80934]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE00.058


[[Page 80935]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE00.059


[[Page 80936]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE00.060


[[Page 80937]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE00.061


[[Page 80938]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE00.062


[[Page 80939]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE00.063


[[Page 80940]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE00.064


[[Page 80941]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE00.065


[[Page 80942]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE00.066


[[Page 80943]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE00.067


[[Page 80944]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE00.068


[[Page 80945]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE00.069


[[Page 80946]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE00.070


[[Page 80947]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE00.071


[[Page 80948]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE00.072


[[Page 80949]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE00.073


[[Page 80950]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE00.074

BILLING CODE 4310-01-C

[[Page 80951]]

Attachment B--Summary of Public Comments on the FEIS

Summary of Public Comment on the FEIS

Introduction

    After the FEIS was published on October 10, 2000 the public was 
invited to comment up until October 31. The total body of comment 
divides into two basic types. First, the content of most of the 
documents fell into categories of repeated topics, statements and 
rationale that were not explicit to the FEIS analysis. NPS read all 
pieces of mail and coded the statements that were made in each. A 
summary of this body of comment is provided in a table with 
accompanying conclusions. In this category, there were about 10,880 
responses in the form of letters, postcards and e-mails. Of these, 
6,717 were form letters and 4,163 were not.
    A second set of letters and e-mails, numbering 55, is distinguished 
by more discussion specific to the FEIS and the process that produced 
it. They generally provide greater amounts of detail and rationale for 
their statements. This set of correspondence includes the cooperating 
agencies, other federal, tribal, state or local agencies (or their 
representatives), concessioners, advocacy groups, and a number of 
individuals. Most had commented earlier on the Draft EIS. These letters 
were read and summarized point by point for the decision maker, to whom 
copies of the letters were also submitted. This attachment contains a 
general summary of the letters, by group type.

Summary of Coded Comments

    Comment letters were coded in order to determine the following 
information:
     Support for or against a specific alternative
     Support for or against individual components of a specific 
alternative
     Support for or against a specific mode of recreational 
oversnow travel
     Flaws in the analysis presented in the FEIS
     Pertinent new information or data that was omitted from 
the FEIS
     New alternatives that were not analyzed in the FEIS
    Categories of comments and the number received are listed in the 
following table. The comments are listed with the most often received 
comments descending to the least often received comments. An individual 
document may contain from one to many separate comments.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Count                            Classification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6446.................................  I support elimination of
                                        snowmobiles in the three park
                                        units.
5491.................................  I support Alternative G.
5424.................................  The NPS has the responsibility
                                        under its mandate to protect
                                        resources.
4724.................................  Snowcoaches are a good means of
                                        allowing access while
                                        eliminating effects on wildlife
                                        and visitor experience.
3324.................................  I support the use of snowmobiles
                                        in the parks.
2392.................................  The analysis is flawed, science
                                        is bad; numbers that Sierra Club
                                        gave you . . . are biased; etc.
2177.................................  The snowmobile industry is trying
                                        hard to meet needs for cleaner,
                                        quieter snowmobiles.
1735.................................  Snowmobilers have a right to
                                        personal access to the park.
1480.................................  Snowmobiles don't impact
                                        resources, or have minimal
                                        impact.
1413.................................  Snowmobiles have significant
                                        impacts on air quality and the
                                        natural soundscape.
1361.................................  Support for specific alternative
                                        Revised E.
1182.................................  Snowmobiles have significant
                                        impacts on wildlife.
890..................................  Snowmobiles have significant
                                        impacts on the winter visitor
                                        experience.
867..................................  I believe that banning
                                        snowmobiles is an overkill
                                        reaction to problems associated
                                        with current snowmobile
                                        technology.
663..................................  Support for specific EIS
                                        alternative A.
653..................................  Alternative G will have
                                        devastating economic impacts.
567..................................  People should be allowed to visit
                                        the parks using any means of
                                        access they wish.
381..................................  Summer/winter comparisons . . .
                                        i.e., buses versus snowmobiles,
                                        emissions, crowding, wildlife
                                        impacts.
323..................................  The parks are for all the people,
                                        not just the ``elite.''
225..................................  Alternative G discriminates
                                        against snowmobilers; if
                                        snowmobiling is eliminated,
                                        skiing should be eliminated too.
225..................................  No Comment.
184..................................  I would like to see a phase-in of
                                        clean and quiet snowmobiles.
142..................................  Economic impacts of eliminating
                                        snowmobile use are overstated.
111..................................  No Road Grooming.
96...................................  Support for specific EIS
                                        alternative C.
94...................................  I support clean, quiet and more
                                        environmentally friendly
                                        snowmobiles or snowcoaches.
91...................................  Support for specific EIS
                                        alternative F.
65...................................  People who are walking and skiing
                                        disturb wildlife more than
                                        people who ride on machines.
59...................................  Support for specific EIS
                                        alternative E.
52...................................  The analysis is good ....(for
                                        whatever reason).
45...................................  The snowmobile industry is not
                                        responsive to needed
                                        technological changes for
                                        environmental protection.
35...................................  Support for specific EIS
                                        alternative B.
18...................................  No Vehicles.
16...................................  Pro-snowplane--Snowplanes don't
                                        impact resources.
12...................................  Support for specific EIS
                                        alternative D.
9....................................  Support for specific alternative
                                        Natural Regulation Alternative.
8....................................  NEPA process is flawed and not
                                        enough time to comment on FEIS.
7....................................  Duplicates.
5....................................  There is no feasibility analysis
                                        for snowcoach operation,
                                        snowcoaches will make the park
                                        inaccessible.
2....................................  NPS is not responsive to people
                                        who snowmobile or snowplane.
2....................................  There should be a multiple-use
                                        alternative.
1....................................  NPS should not use military
                                        ordinance for avalanche control.
1....................................  NPS ignored reasonable
                                        suggestions from the cooperating
                                        agencies.
1....................................  NPS' selection was not driven by
                                        facts or need for action.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 80952]]

    One type of comment that was not included in the overall document 
count were e-mails received from an internet polling site named 
``vote.com.'' The e-mails that were received were the result of an 
ongoing poll about snowmobile use. People responding to the poll were 
asked to vote a ``yes'' or ``no'' to the question ``Should snowmobiles 
be banned from Yellowstone Park?'' Adjacent to the ``yes'' vote was the 
statement, ``People could still take winter tours in cleaner, quieter 
snow coaches.'' Adjacent to the ``no'' vote was the statement, 
``Banning recreational snowmobile users from the park would hurt local 
businesses.'' The results were 619 ``yes'' votes and 1970 ``no'' votes. 
There was some conflicting information concerning the privacy policy 
statement of ``Vote.com.'' The site states that the vote is 
confidential, but the results received included the e-mail address of 
each person voting. A comment was also received expressing concern 
about the ``Vote.com'' comments.

Summary of Individual Letter Contents

Federal Government, Tribal Governments

    Comments on the FEIS were received from: U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, The Shoshone-Bannock 
Tribes, Senator Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming, and from Donald A. Manzullo 
of the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Small Business.
    EPA has no environmental objections to the FEIS preferred 
alternative. EPA finds that the FEIS adequately discloses the impacts 
of all alternatives, and is improved from the DEIS by adequately 
responding to comments from EPA, other agencies and the public.
    The tribes recommend the implementation of Alternative F, citing 
the description of the alternative as rationale. They further state 
that the trust obligations owed by the U.S. to American Indian tribes 
outweighs any commitment to snowmobilers or other recreationists , or 
to the states of Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. They feel that government 
to government consultation was inadequate.
    U.S. Bureau of Reclamation expresses concerns about the ongoing 
business, research, data collection and administrative travel necessary 
for BOR to carry out its duties within the parks. They indicate the 
FEIS is unclear about the options BOR has for necessary travel, since 
most of the routes used by the agency are designated for snowcoach 
travel only, and that the agency must travel in the parks to collect 
data necessary in forecasting snowmelt, and reservoir function 
including flood control. Winter access is necessary to meet agency 
responsibilities.
    U.S. Senate, Senator Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming expresses deep 
concerns about how NPS has mishandled the opportunity to provide clear 
direction and a vision for management. He states that NPS has chosen to 
proceed with a politically biased, predetermined conclusion that 
excludes the community and places the parks out of reach for most 
Americans in the winter. Senator Enzi states that snowcoach access only 
is infeasible for several reasons, and that it is evident the 
snowmobile industry has available technology to comply with any NPS 
noise or emission standards NPS might impose. He also states that NPS 
violated NEPA and several other laws in this process.
    Donald A. Manzullo, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on 
Small Business references testimony from the July 13, 2000 hearing 
before the House Small Business Tax, Finance & Exports Subcommittee 
(The Impact of Banning Snowmobiles Inside National Parks on Small 
Business, Serial No. 106-68). He states that NPS has ignored the main 
thrust of the concerns expressed during the DEIS public comment period 
by reiterating support for alternative G. He feels that a snowcoach 
only system will not work and that the economic impacts from this 
alternative are large.

State Government, Agencies

    Comments were received from the governors of the States of Idaho, 
Montana and Wyoming, and from State Senator Colin Simpson of Wyoming. 
All three states were cooperating agencies in the effort.
    Governor Kempthorne of Idaho attaches to his letter a note from 
Carl Wilgus, cooperating agency representative from the State of Idaho, 
stating that the NPS has ignored, discounted or minimized the good 
faith input from the State of Idaho. Mr. Wilgus states that the NPS has 
repeatedly missed deadlines and then unreasonably expected the 
cooperating agencies to comply with unreasonable deadlines. He states 
the NPS prematurely selected a preferred alternative before reviewing 
all of the public comment on the DEIS. Among the Governor's comments 
are the following. The revised alternative E submitted by the 
cooperating agencies was not adequately considered by the NPS. The 
cooperating agencies were denied representation on the identification 
(sic) team. The choice of alternative G is not grounded in either 
scientific fact or public support. The elimination of snowmobiles will 
only create greater congestion and safety problems in other popular 
locations outside the parks. The loss of the personal freedom to ride 
snowmobiles into the parks is an irreversible and irretrievable 
commitment of resources. The economic analysis presented in the DEIS is 
flawed because the NPS failed to recognize the ``Law of Dimensioning 
Returns'' (sic) (that the revenue generated in the winter allows local 
businesses to stay open, covers the cost of operations and keeps the 
community alive.) None of the alternatives presented in the FEIS are 
acceptable to the State of Idaho. The State of Idaho strongly supports 
revised alternative E.
    The Honorable Colin B. Simpson, Wyoming State Legislature states 
that by eliminating the preferred access for 60% of current visitors, 
NPS is clearly acting in the biased interest of a minority of its 
clients. He indicates the ban is unreasonable and unsubstantiated, and 
agrees with the letter from Park County Commissioners (WY). Among other 
statements in the letter are: adaptive management provisions could deny 
access to the park without due consideration of benefits and enjoyment; 
negative economic impact on gateway communities; and the FEIS is flawed 
by not addressing economic feasibility of snowcoaches.
    Governor Marc Racicot of Montana would like thorough consideration 
of the Montana Preferred Alternative that was submitted during the 
comment period on the DEIS. Governor Racicot was not satisfied with the 
NPS response to Montana's alternative that was published in the FEIS. 
In addition, the Governor expresses the following: the lack of effort 
to reach a broader consensus (by NPS); request for a complete 
evaluation of the Montana alternative to be conducted and provided to 
them; request that the NPS include flexibility in Record of Decision 
regarding cleaner and quieter snowmobile technology; and request that 
the NPS include flexibility with regard to snowcoach only travel to 
plan for the possibility that the proposal will not work.
    Governor Jim Geringer of Wyoming is extremely disappointed in the 
NPS's failure to fully comply with the procedures outlined in the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). He states the FEIS contains 
many information gaps, which are the result of an unrealistic timeframe 
and a flawed NEPA process. Wyoming does not support alternative G and 
indicates that the analysis presented in the FEIS does not support that 
alternative as a final

[[Page 80953]]

decision. Other concerns noted include: the state was not adequately 
consulted and its information was ignored; cleaner quieter snowmobiles 
have an appropriate role to play in the parks; NPS has failed to 
conduct a feasibility study of a mass transportation system to service 
all entrances; and the Record of Decision should include some type of 
escape clause or back-up plan to guarantee public access in the event 
snowcoaches fail to provide reliable service from all entrances. The 
Governor indicates support for adaptive management including the 
utilization of cleaner and quieter snow machines in the parks, as they 
are developed and notes there are currently no emission or sound 
standards for snowcoaches. He states that NPS will continue to use 
snowmobiles, and only when the NPS adopts coach only travel will it be 
fair to impose it on others.

Local Government Agencies

    Comments were received from commissioners of: Park and Gallatin 
Counties, Montana; Park, Fremont and Teton Counties, Wyoming; and Teton 
and Fremont Counties, Idaho. A comment was also submitted by the Teton 
County (WY) Historic Preservation Board. Five counties were cooperating 
agencies in the effort.
    The counties' general responses to the FEIS preferred alternative 
are: 
     Park County Commissioners, Montana, express their total 
dissatisfaction with the FEIS. The timeline was unacceptable and the 
NPS has failed to comply with NEPA and its procedural requirements.
     Fremont County, Wyoming states that ``the winter use plan 
you are planning to implement is unjust, and based on politics and 
emotions rather than science.''
     Park County, Wyoming implores NPS to change its decision 
from the preferred alternative in the FEIS.
     Teton County Board of Commissioners, Wyoming, believes the 
selected preferred alternative did not receive adequate analysis and 
continues to be disappointed in how the NEPA process was used in the 
development of the winter use plans. Teton County initiated the ``Clean 
Snowmobile Challenge'', whose results indicate there are feasible ways 
to create a clean, quiet machine.
     Teton County Commissioners, Idaho, cannot support the 
preferred alternative G, stating the only alternative they can support 
is A, no action. They note agreement with Fremont County ID in 
declaring that the Reclamation Road is an RS2477 highway and is under 
local jurisdiction.
     Fremont County Board of Supervisors, Idaho, state: ``Our 
greatest concerns come from the unknown outcomes as a result of the 
FEIS. Snowcoaches are the answer to all questions, according to 
alternative G, yet there is no plan for having clean and quiet, or 
adequate numbers, of said vehicles in place in the proposed 3 years.''
     Gallatin County Commission, Montana, states: ``Generally 
we do not find that the analysis and information that you use supports 
the preferred alternative. We base our concerns on inconsistencies 
between your statement of desired conditions, the data you provide, the 
criteria developed by the park service and a departure from the 
criteria developed at Idaho Falls in October 1998.'' Much of the letter 
quotes liberally from the Draft EIS to support their comments.
     Teton County Historic Preservation Board, Wyoming, 
indicates the board's consensus is supportive of preferred alternative 
G.
    Common themes in all letters from the counties include the 
following:
     The preferred alternative has no basis in scientific fact. 
Instead of resolving issues that forced the development of the EIS, the 
NPS has opened the door to further litigation.
     Alternative G still provides for the administrative use of 
snowmobiles by employees living in the interior of Yellowstone. This is 
a glaring contradiction.
     The NPS made changes to the schedule without consultation 
or the consent of the cooperating agencies.
     The counties have repeatedly documented how delays in 
providing information and modeling data have precluded the counties 
from fulfilling their obligations.
     NPS reversed its decision to allow the cooperating 
agencies to participate on the FEIS planning team.
     The alternatives workshop in which the counties 
participated did not provide them with the opportunity to provide 
meaningful input.
     The FEIS ignores the utility of setting an overall 
carrying capacity for visitors.
     The FEIS ignores the utility of setting an overall 
carrying capacity for wildlife.
     The cooperating agencies do not support the incorporation 
of individual elements of the revised alternative E into the FEIS. The 
revised alternative E as submitted by the counties was not intended to 
be dissected and is only effective if incorporated as a whole.
     Leave the door open to all new technological advances for 
snowmobiles and allow them in the parks.
     The NPS has chosen to disregard and misconstrue the input 
the recommendations of the cooperating agencies.
     YNP was set aside as a preserve for recreational enjoyment 
and use, and should be continued to be managed with this intent.
     The economic impacts of eliminating snowmobiles will be 
devastating.
     Over regulation by the federal government has been the 
demise of many industries.
     NPS does not discuss or acknowledge the existence of 
current snowmobile technology that would help solve the problem.
     The counties strongly disagree with the characterization 
of how the alternatives were formulated; banning snowmobiles goes far 
beyond what was agreed to.
     Alternative G eliminates conflicts, but at the expense of 
an entire user group. It appears the resources could be protected and 
conflicts minimized while accommodating all user groups.
     There is much doubt about the feasibility of going to 
snowcoaches only, and how this affects other users and commercial 
operators. A feasibility analysis should have been done.
     The majority of winter visitors have told you that your 
preferred alternative is the one they prefer the least.
     We challenge NPS to demonstrate how they've been 
cooperative and how cooperation is consistent with the preferred 
alternative.

Environmental Groups

    Comments were received from groups or from individuals identifying 
themselves as speaking in behalf of a group. Comments were received 
from the following groups.
     Jefferson County Environmental Network, Lakemills, 
Wisconsin
     Predator Conservation Alliance, Bozeman, Montana
     Blue Water Network, San Francisco, California
     American Lands Alliance, Washington D.C.
     Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads, Boulder, Colorado
     Aspen Wilderness Workshop, Aspen, Colorado
     Native Forest Network, Bozeman, Montana
     Wyoming Chapter of the Sierra Club, Jackson, Wyoming
     Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Bozeman, Montana
     Schubert and Associates, Glendale, Arizona

[[Page 80954]]

     The Ecology Center, Inc., Missoula, Montana
    Comments from these groups fall into several categories. Some 
groups express support for Alternative G. Some groups give qualified 
support to the alternative. Others express support for eliminating 
snowmobiles, but also see the need to eliminate any groomed trails and 
motorized oversnow use in the parks.
    Most groups that support Alternative G indicate that snowmobiles 
should be removed from the parks sooner than 3 years if at all 
possible. They state that there is broad public support for eliminating 
snowmobiles in parks, and are optimistic about elements in the business 
community that welcome snowcoach transport. Other related comments are:
     Snowmobilers have been given too much time to ``develop 
their rights.''
     There is no right to engage in a noncomforming use.
     NPS should better lay out its plan for transition to 
snowcoach only.
     Snowmobiles should be removed at the soonest time 
possible. Three year ``phase-in'' is unacceptable due to continuing 
impacts of noise, wildlife harassment, air pollution, and visitor 
disruption.
     Continued snowmobile use needs to be brought into 
compliance with laws.
     Snowmobile ban in the parks will not affect the snowmobile 
industry.
     Community business leaders recognize there could be 
benefits of a snowmobile ban.
     There are many places outside the parks that provide 
snowmobiling opportunities.
     There is broad public support for eliminating snowmobiles 
from parks.
     Sen. Thomas' solution of separating snowmobilers and 
skiers is inadequate because it doesn't address environmental impacts 
or noise.
     Snowmobilers disregard regulations, disrupting the 
integrity of wilderness and wildlife habitat.
     Changes will decrease noise, polluted air stresses to 
wildlife, and offer visitors a quality experience.
     Any trail grooming should still be done without conflicts 
with important wildlife habitat.
     The decision should also close YNP's east entrance and 
eliminate the use of military ordinance.
     Interpretation, information and education should be 
emphasized in winter management.
     NPS risks violation of statutes, regulations and executive 
orders. The ROD should express the role of monitoring and that 
violations would be cause to halt offending uses.
     Implementation of a snowcoach system represents benefits 
that far exceed those raised in the FEIS.
     NPS can be a catalyst for innovation in snowcoach 
technology.
     Snowcoach transport should be attractive for visitors and 
fit the unique winter setting of the parks. NPS should determine the 
best design for this purpose and include current manufacturers, 
purchasers and clientele served by existing snowcoaches.
     A transition task force should be convened--composed of 
NPS, affected businesses and concessioners, local officials and 
environmental groups.
     NPS should initiate education and outreach to assist in 
the marketing of new winter recreation opportunities, to the benefit of 
gateway economies.
     NPS should investigate programs and funding strategies to 
facilitate the creation of a snowcoach mass-transit system, and 
affected local businesses should be given initial preference in the new 
system.
    Those who express qualified support state that the preferred 
alternative is an improvement over current management. They indicate:
     Pleased that the plan replaces snowmobile use with 
snowcoaches.
     Snowmobiles affect air, water, sound, visitor experience, 
wildlife, and bison movement.
     Snowcoach use would continue to facilitate bison leaving 
the park in the winter. Winter use should only be allowed to the extent 
that it doesn't have this impact.
     Would prefer alternative F in the DEIS, along with closure 
of YNP's east entrance.
    Those who do not support the preferred alternative also generally 
express the idea that the ``decision'' is probably the only legal 
recourse for NPS because of its mandate. They note that, while the 
plans represent an improvement over current management, concerns 
remain. Replacing snowmobiles with snowcoaches also should not be 
permitted. They indicate: 
     The parks wildlife and ecosystem will continue to suffer 
from groomed routes for snowcoaches.
     Continued snowmobile use has unacceptable impacts and they 
should be removed immediately.
     NPS has no legal mandate to provide motorized access.
     The Biological Assessment fails to consider the impacts of 
road grooming on federally listed species.
     The FEIS is deficient.
     A complete ban on groomed routes and termination of all 
oversnow motorized use should have been considered in the EIS (a ``true 
no-action alternative).
     There are no regulations permitting road grooming or 
snowcoach operation.
     FEIS failed to properly analyze the adverse impact of road 
grooming on bison.
     NPS failed to properly consider and respond to several 
issues raised in comments on the DEIS.
     The FEIS range of alternatives is inadequate, based on the 
settlement agreement as mandated by the judge.
     Many of the analysis points raised in the FEIS actually 
affirm the contentions in the lawsuit.
     Reserves the right to participate in further litigation.

Business Community, Including Park Concessioners

    Comments were received from groups or from individuals identifying 
themselves as speaking in behalf of a group. Comments were received 
from the following groups. 
     Riverton Community Development Association, Riverton, 
Wyoming.
     Pahaska Tepee Resort, Cody, Wyoming.
     International Leisure Hosts, Ltd., dba Flagg Ranch Resort, 
Tempe, Arizona.
     Cody Chamber of Commerce, Cody, Wyoming.
     Jackson Hole Chamber of Commerce, Jackson, Wyoming.
     West, South and East Gate Operators, YNP, West 
Yellowstone, Flagg Ranch, Pahaska Tepee.
     Mattracks Inc., Karlstad, Minnesota.
     Mr. David McCray, Two Top Snowmobile Rental, West 
Yellowstone, Montana.
     Mr. F.W. Howell, Yellowstone Arctic Yamaha, West 
Yellowstone, Montana.
     Mr. Pat Povah, Hamilton Stores, Yellowstone, Wyoming.
     Mr. Randy Roberson, Yellowstone Vacations, West 
Yellowstone, Montana.
    Comments from most groups expressed firm opposition to alternative 
G. Some continue to express strong support for revised alternative E, 
and believe as stated in previous comments that E would meet the 
purpose and need for action. Statements from this body of comment 
include: 
     Closing YNP to public snowmobiling will shift use to other 
public lands, and result in impacts on them.
     Alternative E is acceptable if the advisory groups are not 
packed with anti-multiple use advocates.
     Actions of the federal government to eliminate access to 
most of the area in the county destroys our means of making a living.
     Object to portions of the plan that limit or eliminate 
access or types of

[[Page 80955]]

access to the parks. This includes snowcoach only access, adaptive 
management, NPS managed snowcoaches, controlled stops in the parks, and 
limited to no access at the east entrance of YNP.
     Object to portions of the plan that have a negative 
economic impact on gateway communities--eliminating snowmobiles takes 
away the preferred mode of travel for 60% of YNPs historic visitors.
     Object to portions of the plan that allow administrative 
snowmobile use, that ignores safety concerns relative to snowcoaches, 
ignores inconvenience of snowcoaches, ignores other technical 
difficulties with implementing the alternative.
     ``Snowcoaches only'' is not financially feasible for a 
number of reasons.
     The FEIS fails to adequately analyze the effects of 
increased snow coach operations on air quality, wildlife, the NPS 
budget, visitor demographics and the economy.
     If numbers are a concern, we believe that all alternatives 
have a provision for establishing carrying capacities.
     Concerned that the interim use limits, if implemented this 
year, would prohibit fulfilling existing reservations.
     Because of the greater mileage most people would come to 
West Yellowstone, causing even greater congestion there.
     Snowcoach travel is too slow and too uncomfortable.
     Increasing snowcoaches will cause greater safety hazards. 
More people would be hurt in a single accident.
     Snowcoaches are too expensive, 20 snowcoaches would cost 
1,400,000 a year and would sit idle for 9 months.
     Cleaner and quieter snowmobiles are available for 
purchase.
     The implementation of alternative G will result in 
devastating economic effects.
     From the east gate the only desirable destination would be 
Canyon
     Mechanical breakdowns (snowcoaches) would keep visitors 
waiting in the cold until help arrives.
     The increased speed and number of snowcoaches would 
increase safety hazards.
     The preferred alternative and the FEIS are biased against 
snowmobiles.
     In order to accommodate current use levels there would be 
lines of snowcoaches at the entrance gates.
     Snowcoaches have a 10% breakdown rate--who would retrieve 
them?
     The parking and storage requirements for the snowcoaches 
would be space and cost prohibitive.
     If snowmobiles must be banned, plow the road and use buses 
instead.
    The ``West, South and East Gate Operators'', YNP, West Yellowstone, 
Flagg Ranch, Pahaska Tepee corporately submitted a letter, stating that 
Alternative G will deny rather than provide access to the visiting 
public. The express the right of the public to enjoy the park is of 
paramount importance, second only to protecting the park for the 
future. Other statements include: 
     Enjoyment of snowcoach travel vastly diminishes after 90 
miles. The alternative eliminates enjoyment of travel to a number of 
popular places in the park.
     Flagg Ranch stipulates that the alternative would 
eliminate access from the south. If the road to Flagg Ranch is not 
plowed, the ranch will not open in the winter and it will not be a 
destination.
     From Pahaska, the only possible destination within the 90 
mile enjoyment level would be the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone. Also 
snowcoaches over Sylvan are not advisable due to safety concerns.
     Other objections to snowcoaches only are: Insufficient 
speed, safety, inadequate technology, capital investment necessary, 
mode of travel is not cheaper (than snowmobiles), the public prefers 
snowmobiles, and it would be devastating to the economy.
     The burden is on NPS to conduct a feasibility study of the 
alternative.
     Flagg Ranch cannot be a destination resort without a 
plowed road to it. The contract requires the plowed road. NPS assured 
Flagg Ranch that its contract would be honored.
     Interim snowmobile limits will limit the ranch's ability 
to operate. This is also a breach of contract.
     Elimination of snowmobiles is a breach of the contract, 
which doesn't expire until 2009.
     Not plowing the road from Colter Bay to Flagg Ranch would 
make all of Yellowstone inaccessible to those who have traditionally 
entered from the south entrance.
    Mattracks Inc., Karlstad, Minnesota, is the only respondent in this 
group to support the selection of alternative G as the preferred 
alternative and offers the following implementation suggestions: 
     Suggests a passenger capacity of 6 to 15. A smaller 
vehicle does not achieve mass transit goals and larger vehicles may 
cause damage to resources.
     The NPS should implement EPA emission standards for 
snowcoaches.
     The NPS should require the use of rubber tracked vehicles 
instead of metal or cleated tracks to reduce the sound levels of 
snowcoaches. These vehicles have a less aggressive track and may also 
run of pavement without causing damage.
     Snowcoaches should be of a single inclusive enclosure (no 
trailers with passengers).

Snowmobile or Snowcoach Industry, Advocates

    Comments were received from: 
     Birch, Horton, Bittner and Cherot and William P. Horn, 
Attorneys for the International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association.
     Mr. Virgil Koehler, American Council of Snowmobiles.
     Utah Snowmobile Association, Salt Lake City, Utah.
     Idaho State Snowmobile Association, Boise, Idaho.
     Ms. Adena Cook, Public Lands Director, Blue Ribbon 
Coalition, Idaho Falls, Idaho.
     Ms. Beth Walsh, Moran, Wyoming.
     Mr. Jim Gerber, St. Anthony, Idaho.
    All comments in this group are opposed to the selection of 
alternative G. Some support the implementation of a revised alternative 
E but indicate that since this alternative was not included in the FEIS 
their support is given to alternative A, the no action alternative. 
Reasons for opposition to the implementation of alternative G in the 
parks for the following reasons: 
     A 21 day review period is unacceptable for such a dramatic 
change in alternative preference.
     The expertise of a significant cross section of 
professionals (cooperating agencies) has been totally ignored.
     The snowmobile industry has made many improvements in 
technology since 1970.
     The benefit of snowcoach travel in the parks is pure 
conjecture.
     The misuse and abuse of the NEPA process in preparation of 
this FEIS is appalling.
     The FEIS was crafted to support a decision made in 
Washington D.C. requiring significant shifts from the DEIS 
alternatives.
     The FEIS fails to utilize constructive It would 
drastically reduce winter recreation use and enjoyment in derogation of 
the acts creating Yellowstone National Park and the national park 
system.
     Alternative G was concocted after the fact and the NPS has 
not allowed the public sufficient time to explore the plan and register 
informed comments.
     Alternative G would violate existing concessions 
contracts--(Flagg Ranch in particular).
     Alternative G would have devastating effects on the 
economies local communities.

[[Page 80956]]

     Snowmobiles produced after 1976 emit no more than 73 dB(A) 
at 15 MPH when tested using SAE J1161.
     Several studies are cited that indicate that deer are more 
likely to move away from ski trails than snowmobile trails and that 
they are unaffected by snowmobile traffic.
     A University of Wisconsin study found that snowmobile 
traffic has no effect on the grain yield of winter wheat.
     Six of the seven alternatives offered in the FEIS provide 
almost no range of proposals that could possibly be considered as 
conscientious multiple use management of public lands.
     The change in the preferred alternative from ``B'' to 
``G'' without allowing the public to comment proves that land managers 
are only listening to the well-funded voices of the minority extreme 
advocacy groups.
     Comments submitted by ISSA, and the state of Wyoming.
     The FEIS exaggerates the environmental effects of 
snowmobiles.
     The economic analysis presented in the FEIS is superficial 
and inadequate.
     The FEIS fails to adequately define what would constitute 
acceptable impacts from snowmobiles.
     Revised alternative E was not seriously considered.
     The FEIS version of the ``Existing Condition'' and 
``Desired Condition'' was significantly altered from the version in the 
DEIS.
     Alternative G is totally new and has not been validated by 
the public.
     The NPS has manipulated visitor use numbers to serve its 
own purposes.
     The FEIS describes natural soundscapes as a resource not a 
value.
     The Duffield study is pure conjecture, the FEIS should 
have incorporated the more factual State of Wyoming study.
     Additional information in the FEIS on social values, 
soundscapes and emissions need validation before any conclusions can be 
reached.
     The NPS was arbitrary and capricious in its decision to 
ban snowmobiles and require snowcoaches instead.
     The analysis of water quality for alternatives A through F 
states that there is no evidence of measurable changes in water quality 
from snowmobile emissions yet in alternative G the FEIS concludes that 
alternative G addresses the issue of water quality better than other 
alternatives.
     Snowcoaches will result in a loss of personal freedom and 
a poor experience in the parks.
     Snowcoaches will be cost prohibitive for many.
     Constructing new winter facilities at Colter Bay makes no 
sense because the facilities at Flagg Ranch are currently under 
utilized.
     Construction new winter facilities at Colter Bay would 
negatively effect lynx habitat.
     If the park service does not plow the road from Colter to 
Flagg it will result in longer EMS response times.

[FR Doc. 00-30998 Filed 12-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-01-P