Federal Lands: Agencies Need to Assess the Impact of Personal Watercraft
and Snowmobile Use (Letter Report, 09/15/2000, GAO/RCED-00-243).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the use of personal
watercraft and snowmobile use on federal lands, focusing on: (1) the
extent personal watercraft and snowmobiles are used in federal units
that are managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Park Service (NPS), and the Forest
Service; (2) the bases for agency decisions to authorize or prohibit the
use of these vehicles; (3) where the vehicles are whether restrictions
exist vehicle on operations in places where their use is allowed, and
how are these restrictions enforced; and (4) the extent to which federal
agencies assessed the impact of such use.
GAO noted that: (1) in fiscal year 1999, personal watercraft,
snowmobiles, or both were used for recreation in 475 of the 1,018
federal units that responded to GAO's questionnaire; (2) several factors
determine whether personal watercraft or snowmobile use is permitted in
a particular federal unit; (3) specific provisions in federal law
prohibit the use of these vehicles in some locations, such as wilderness
areas, and specifically authorize their use in others, such as national
recreation areas; (4) if no laws specifically prohibit or authorize use,
the federal agency responsible for managing the land and water makes
such a determination; (5) NPS and the FWS generally disallow the
recreational use of these vehicles unless it can be demonstrated that no
harm would be likely to result to the unit's resources and environment;
(6) in contrast, the Forest Service and BLM generally allow their use
unless the unit manager clearly demonstrates potential harm; (7)
approval for recreational use of personal watercraft or snowmobiles on
federal lands generally comes with restrictions; (8) in most cases the
restrictions come from state laws and regulations that have been adopted
by the federal agency or an individual unit; (9) in many cases,
enforcement actions are a shared responsibility among federal, state,
and local officials; (10) even with this shared responsibility, a
significant number of federal units reported that a personnel shortage
limited enforcement activity; (11) managers of individual federal units
often do not have any information on the impacts of personal watercraft
and snowmobiles on their unit's resources and environment; (12) a
variety of laws and executive orders authorize the federal land
management agencies to monitor the impact of using recreational vehicles
on natural resources, safety, and other users of federal lands and
waters; (13) about 60 percent of the federal units that have use
reported that they have not collected information on the effects of that
use; (14) of the remaining units, about half said the information was
not adequate for determining how personal watercraft and snowmobile use
should be managed; (15) agency officials generally attributed this lack
of information to the low priority the agencies have given to monitoring
the effects of these vehicles; and (16) according to officials of all
four agencies, monitoring has received a low priority because only a few
units have experienced intensive use of these vehicles.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-00-243
TITLE: Federal Lands: Agencies Need to Assess the Impact of
Personal Watercraft and Snowmobile Use
DATE: 09/15/2000
SUBJECT: National recreation areas
Land management
Motor vehicle safety
Conservation
National parks
National forests
Wildlife conservation
Outdoor recreation
Federal regulations
IDENTIFIER: National Wildlife Refuge System
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Testimony. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO/RCED-00-243
Report to Congressional Requesters
September 2000 FEDERAL LANDS Agencies Need to Assess the Impact of Personal
Watercraft and Snowmobile Use
GAO/ RCED- 00- 243
Letter 3 Appendixes Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 32
Appendix II: Survey Questions and Response 35 Appendix III: Studies and
Documents Identified by Federal
Units About the Impacts of Personal Watercraft and Snowmobiles 59
Appendix IV: Comments From the Department of the Interior 76 Appendix V:
Comments From the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service 82
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 85 Tables Table 1:
Responsibilities of Four Federal Land Management Agencies 8
Table 2: Extent of Use, by Agency and Vehicle Type, Fiscal Year 1999 10
Table 3: Total Prohibitions of Use by Agency and Vehicle Type 16 Table 4:
Units Reporting Lack of Authority to Control Use 16 Table 5: Information on
Impacts, by Agency and by Type of Information 22
Table 6: Response Rate for Personal Watercraft and Snowmobile Use Survey 34
Figures Figure 1: A Personal Watercraft 6 Figure 2: A Snowmobile 7
Figure 3: Distribution of Use or Capacity Among the 1,018 Federal Units 11
Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division
Lett er
B- 284390 September 15, 2000 The Honorable Bruce F. Vento The Honorable
George Miller House of Representatives
Many of our national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and other federal
lands are a potential source of recreational opportunities for the estimated
14 million adults who used a personal watercraft or snowmobile in 1999.
However, the recreational use of these vehicles is often criticized as
causing damage to plants, wildlife, and other resources, as well as creating
safety problems and conflicts with other visitors to federal lands.
Determining the extent to which these vehicles should be allowed to operate
on these lands is a contentious and challenging issue faced by federal land
managers. Although this issue draws considerable attention, relatively
little reliable information has been assembled about the extent to which
personal watercraft and snowmobiles are used on federal lands, the process
by which decisions about their use are made, or the extent of monitoring
being done in areas where their use is allowed. As a result, you asked us to
provide more information on these matters. We focused our work on the four
major federal land management agencies- the Bureau of Land Management, the
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service in the Department
of the Interior, and the Forest Service in the Department
of Agriculture. Collectively, these agencies manage about 95 percent of all
federal lands. As agreed with your offices, we addressed the following
questions:
To what extent are personal watercraft and snowmobiles used in federal units
managed by these agencies? What are the bases for agency decisions to
authorize or prohibit the use
of these vehicles? In federal units where their use is allowed, do
restrictions exist on
operations, and how are these restrictions enforced? To what extent have
these federal agencies assessed the impact of such use? To respond to these
questions, we asked managers from each of nearly 1,200 federal units within
the four agencies to answer a questionnaire.
These units include the lands and waters in such areas as national parks and
monuments, national forests and recreation areas, wildlife refuges, and
grasslands. Managers from more than 85 percent of these units responded. The
questionnaire asked, among other things, about whether lands or bodies of
water in their unit had the capacity for personal watercraft or snowmobile
use; 1 if so, whether prohibitions or restrictions were in place; and what
information, if any, was available on the impacts of recreational use of
these vehicles. The resulting information, while not inclusive of
every unit, is nonetheless more comprehensive than any other information
available. Appendix I describes our scope and methodology in more detail;
appendix II contains agency- by- agency responses to our questionnaire.
Results in Brief In fiscal year 1999, personal watercraft, snowmobiles, or
both were used for recreation in 475 of the 1, 018 (47 percent) federal
units that responded
to our questionnaire. This rate varies by agency, from 31 percent of the
units managed by the National Park Service to 82 percent of the units
managed by the Forest Service. Personal watercraft are used in more
federal units than are snowmobiles. Although personal watercraft and
snowmobile users constitute a relatively small portion of total visitors to
most units, during some seasons they may represent a significant portion of
the total number of visitors to some units. For example, in Yellowstone
National Park, snowmobile users make up more than 43 percent of the park's
winter visitors. Several factors determine whether personal watercraft or
snowmobile use is permitted in a particular federal unit, including specific
provisions in law and an agency's regulations and policies. Specific
provisions in federal law prohibit the use of these vehicles in some
locations, such as wilderness areas, and specifically authorize their use in
others, such as national recreation areas. If no laws specifically prohibit
or authorize use, the federal agency responsible for managing the land and
water makes such a determination, generally on a unit- by- unit basis.
Regulations and policies for these use determinations differ substantially
among the four agencies.
The National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service generally 1 In
our questionnaire, we defined “capacity for use” as follows: for
snowmobiles, it means having suitable terrain and sufficient snow depth in
an average year to operate these vehicles within a federal unit; for
personal watercraft, it means any water on or adjacent to the lands
administered by the federal unit that support or could potentially support
their use.
disallow the recreational use of these vehicles unless it can be
demonstrated that no harm would be likely to result to the unit's resources
and environment. In contrast, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
Management generally allow their use unless the unit manager clearly
demonstrates potential harm. Finally, in certain cases, federal agencies
defer, primarily to states, the decision about whether or not to allow
personal watercraft or snowmobile use in all or part of an individual
federal unit. In other cases, a state may have some authority to make this
decision, such as through an easement or right- of- way agreement.
Approval for recreational use of personal watercraft or snowmobiles on
federal lands generally comes with restrictions. For example, use might be
limited to certain times or areas, and operators might have to meet certain
age requirements or observe certain speed limits. In most cases the
restrictions come from state laws and regulations that have been adopted by
the federal agency or an individual unit. In many cases, enforcement actions
are a shared responsibility among federal, state, and local officials. Even
with this shared responsibility, however, a significant number of federal
units reported that a personnel shortage limited enforcement
activity. Managers of individual federal units often do not have any
information on the impacts of personal watercraft and snowmobiles on their
unit's resources and environment. A variety of laws and executive orders
authorize the federal land management agencies to monitor the impact of
using recreational vehicles on natural resources, safety, and other users of
federal lands and waters. However, about 60 percent of the federal units
that have use reported that they have not collected information on the
effects of that use. In addition, of the remaining 40 percent of the units
that have collected such information, about half said the information was
not adequate for determining how personal watercraft and snowmobile use
should be managed. Agency officials generally attributed this lack of
information to the low priority the agencies have given to monitoring the
effects of these vehicles. According to officials of all four agencies,
monitoring has received a low priority because, historically, only a few
units have experienced intensive use of these vehicles. We are making
recommendations to the Secretaries of the Interior and of Agriculture that,
where personal watercraft and snowmobile use occurs, the four agencies
monitor what impact, if any, these vehicles are having and use that
information in making future decisions on whether to continue to allow this
use, and if so, how that use should be managed.
Background In 1999, an estimated 10 million adults used a personal
watercraft and an estimated 4 million adults used a snowmobile in the United
States.
Personal watercraft- often called by such names as jet ski and waverunner-
are high- performance watercraft operated by a person sitting, standing, or
kneeling on the vessel rather than sitting within the confines of a hull.
(See fig. 1.) The watercraft are highly maneuverable and are often used to
perform stunt- like maneuvers. Some personal watercraft are capable of
speeds exceeding 60 miles per hour.
Figure 1: A Personal Watercraft
Source: Courtesy of the Personal Watercraft Industry Association.
Snowmobiles allow users to travel across the snow into remote areas; some
are capable of speeds exceeding 80 miles per hour. (See fig. 2.)
Figure 2: A Snowmobile
Source: GAO. Millions of personal watercraft and snowmobiles are available
annually for recreational use in the United States, often on the parks,
forests, ranges, and other lands held by the federal government. Most of
these lands are managed by one of four agencies- the Bureau of Land
Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, and
the Forest Service. Combined, the 629 million acres they manage represent
about 27 percent of the nation's total area. Each agency manages at least 80
million acres of land, and each agency has a unique management
responsibility for preserving and protecting the land. (See table 1.)
Table 1: Responsibilities of Four Federal Land Management Agencies Agency
Bureau of Land Fish and Wildlife Management Service National Park Service
Forest Service
Number of acres 264 million 93 million 80 million 192 million managed
Management
Manage multiple uses a Preserve and enhance Preserve and protect
Manage multiple uses a of responsibilities of federal lands in 11 fish,
wildlife, plants, and national parks, recreation
the national forests and western states and their habitats, primarily in
areas, battlefields, grasslands. Alaska, including
national wildlife refuges. historic sites, grasslands, forests, monuments,
and
deserts, high mountains, preserves. and arctic tundra.
a Multiple uses include recreation; mining; timber harvesting; livestock
grazing; water; and protecting fish, wildlife, and their habitats. Source:
GAO's presentation of information from the agencies cited.
The use of personal watercraft and snowmobiles has raised concerns about
their impacts on the environment, public safety, and conflicts with other
users. For example, according to studies by the Environmental Protection
Agency and other federal and state agencies, both types of vehicles
discharge up to 25 to 30 percent of their fuel (a combination of oil and gas
containing numerous toxic compounds) unburned into the environment. Other
studies have shown that the rapid movement and noise from these
vehicles stresses wildlife. For example, researchers at the Fish and
Wildlife Service's Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge in the Florida
Keys noted that disturbances by personal watercraft contributed to the poor
reproductive success of nesting ospreys. Concerns have also been raised
about the safety record of both personal watercraft and snowmobiles. For
example, while personal watercraft make up less than 10 percent of the
motorized boating vessels registered in the United States, they constitute
approximately 40 percent of the vessels involved in accidents. 2
Furthermore, on average, over 13,000 people are treated in emergency
rooms for snowmobile injuries each year. 3 In addition, some federal units
have reported that the use of personal watercraft and snowmobiles has caused
conflicts with other users of federal lands. For example, at the Deschutes
National Forest in Oregon, Forest Service officials noted that a
2 Boating Statistics- 1997, U. S. Coast Guard (June 1999). 3 Hazard Sketch:
Snowmobiles, U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (Nov. 1997).
dramatic increase in both snowmobile use and nonmotorized uses, such as
cross- country skiing and snowshoeing, created a conflict between these
users for access to forest trails. According to industry representatives,
personal watercraft and snowmobiles currently being manufactured meet
existing noise standards and either meet existing air quality standards or
are only small contributors to air pollution nationwide. These
representatives noted that manufacturers are also attempting to further
address pollution and noise
concerns through technological developments in engine design- producing more
efficient, cleaner, and quieter machines. Furthermore, according to industry
representatives, manufacturers are promoting safer vehicle operation. For
example, representatives of the Personal Watercraft Industry Association
said the association is promoting safety standards, including a minimum age
requirement of 16 years old to operate personal
watercraft. Similarly, the International Snowmobile Manufacturers
Association has led campaigns to educate users on the safe operation of
snowmobiles. In addition, both associations support buffer zones and/ or
trail designs that help to protect sensitive environmental areas and
wildlife.
Nearly Half of the Of the 1,018 federal units that responded to our survey,
475 units, or about Federal Units Report
47 percent, reported the recreational use of personal watercraft,
snowmobiles, or both during fiscal year 1999. The extent to which units
Recreational Use of reported this use varied considerably from agency to
agency and from unit Personal Watercraft or to unit. More units reported the
use of personal watercraft than of Snowmobiles snowmobiles. While personal
watercraft or snowmobile users are generally a small portion of the total
visitors to the units, in some cases, they are significant users during
particular seasons.
Extent of Use Varies by Forest Service units reported the greatest use of
personal watercraft and Agency and Type of Vehicle
snowmobiles during fiscal year 1999, and National Park Service units
reported the least use. (See table 2.) About 82 percent of all Forest
Service units reported the use of personal watercraft, snowmobiles, or both,
compared with 31 percent of National Park Service units. The recreational
use at units within the Bureau of Land Management and the Fish and Wildlife
Service was in between these levels. Overall, more units reported personal
watercraft use than snowmobile use. Also, the two agencies with a multiple-
use mandate, the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service, had
greater use of these vehicles than the National Park Service and the Fish
and Wildlife Service, which have a preservation and protection
mandate. In all, 196 units had only personal watercraft use, 133 units had
only snowmobile use, and 146 units had both.
Table 2: Extent of Use, by Agency and Vehicle Type, Fiscal Year 1999 Types
of vehicle and number of units reporting use a
Both Units
personal Percentage of responding to
Personal Snowmobiles
watercraft and total units Agency
survey watercraft only only snowmobiles Total
reporting use a
Bureau of Land 103 23 21 35 79 77
Management Fish and Wildlife 419 93 49 16 158 38 Service National Park 328
52 37 12 101 31
Service b Forest Service 168 28 26 83 137 82
Total 1, 018 196 133 146 475 47
a In our questionnaire, use was defined as use that occurred both where the
agency did and did not have the authority to regulate or control use. b
National Park Service officials noted that the number of units reporting use
of snowmobiles exceeded the number of parks where use is authorized by the
Park Service's regulations for a number of reasons, including use on
nonfederal lands such as county and state roads located within a unit.
Furthermore, in the case of personal watercraft, National Park Service
officials noted that the units reported use that occurred prior to the Park
Service's April 2000 regulation that prohibited, pending
further evaluation, personal watercraft in all but 21 parks.
According to our survey results, about one- fourth of the federal units
lacked the capacity for use of personal watercraft or snowmobiles. For
example, some units within the National Park Service are historic sites,
such as Independence National Historic Park in downtown Philadelphia-
locations that do not have water for operating personal watercraft or land
for snowmobiling. Even forests or parks with extensive amounts of terrain
might not have the capacity for use because they do not contain adequate
bodies of water or because they do not receive enough snow. In all, of the
1,018 federal units that responded to our questionnaire, 241 units, or about
24 percent, did not have capacity for either type of use. (See fig. 3.) By
comparison, 302 units, or 29 percent, reported that although they had
capacity for use, use either was prohibited or was not reported.
Figure 3: Distribution of Use or Capacity Among the 1,018 Federal Units
No capacity for personal watercraft or snowmobile use (241 units)
24% 47% Use of personal watercraft, snowmobiles,
or both is occurring (475 units)
29%
Capacity exists for personal watercraft or snowmobile use, but no use
reported (302 units)
Users Tend to Be a Small For those federal units that reported information
on the amount of Percentage of Total Visitors
personal watercraft or snowmobile use that was occurring, most reported that
users were a relatively small number of the unit's total number of visitors.
In total nationwide, personal watercraft and snowmobile users were less than
2 percent of the total visitors to federal units.
Because many federal units did not provide information about how much
personal watercraft or snowmobile use occurred, we cannot reliably report
which units received the greatest amount of use. Specifically, among the 475
units reporting some personal watercraft or snowmobile use in fiscal year
1999, only 214, or about 45 percent, provided estimates or actual numbers on
the amount of use that was occurring. However, some units clearly see more
use than others, and several observations can be made
about some of the sites that provided information. Specifically: In some
units, the use of personal watercraft can occur year round. For example, the
Bureau of Land Management's Lake Havasu Field Office in
Arizona reported that this was the case for nearly 18 percent of its
visitors. Also, the Fish and Wildlife Service's Imperial National Wildlife
Refuge in Arizona reported that 33 percent of its visitors used personal
watercraft during 12 months of the year. In other federal units, however,
personal watercraft use makes up only a small percentage of visitors. At the
Mt. Baker National Forest, for example, out of an estimated 1.5 million
summertime visitors, the unit reported that only 250 visitors used a
personal watercraft. In some units, snowmobile use was a significant part of
wintertime
recreational activity. The Dixie National Forest in Utah, for example,
reported that snowmobile users constituted 70 percent of its 3.3 million
visitors during the winter of 1999. In addition, during the same period at
Yellowstone National Park, snowmobile users were 43 percent of the park's
124, 000 winter visitors. However, at other units, seasonal
snowmobile use is quite small. For example, at Acadia National Park in
Maine, the unit reported that only about 50 of its almost 50,000 winter
visitors used a snowmobile. Overall, personal watercraft and snowmobile
users were less than 2 percent of the total visitors at the vast majority of
federal units reporting usage data.
Decisions on Allowing Allowing the recreational use of personal watercraft
or snowmobiles in a Recreational Use Are
particular federal unit depends on several factors, including specific
provisions of various laws, and the regulations and policies of the agency
Affected by Laws, managing the land. In certain cases, the federal agencies
defer, primarily to Agency Regulations states, the decision about whether or
not to allow personal watercraft or
and Policies, and the snowmobile use in all or part of an individual federal
unit. In other cases, a
state may have some authority to make this decision, such as through an
Authority Regulating
easement or right- of- way agreement. the Land
Provisions in Federal Law Through various provisions in laws, the Congress
has specifically
Specifically Authorize Use authorized or prohibited the operation of
personal watercraft and/ or in Some Areas and Prohibit
snowmobiles in some individual federal units or special areas within units.
Use in Others
For example: In designating the 23, 100- acre Allegheny National Recreation
Area within the Allegheny National Forest in northwestern Pennsylvania in
1984, the Congress determined that the Secretary of Agriculture should
manage portions of the Allegheny Reservoir- a 27- mile long, humanmade
impoundment on the New York State border- for the use of motorized and
nonmotorized boats. Personal watercraft use is allowed on this reservoir,
which is considered the centerpiece of developed recreation in the Allegheny
National Forest. In authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to establish
Voyageurs National Park in Minnesota in 1971, the Congress authorized the
Secretary, when planning for the development of the park, to include
appropriate provisions for winter sports, including the use of snowmobiles.
The 55- mile long park borders the Canadian province of Ontario and contains
over 30 lakes and 900 islands that are reached
primarily over ice and snow in winter. Over 70, 000 of the park's 218,000
acres are open to the use of snowmobiles; more of the park's area is
available for this use than in any other unit in the National Park System in
the lower 48 states. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
provides for the
use of snowmobiles and motorboats in certain federal units in Alaska for
traditional activities (e. g., subsistence hunting) and for travel to and
from villages and homesites. In addition to unit- by- unit designations, the
Congress has prohibited motorized vehicles in certain types of lands, such
as wilderness areas. In the Wilderness Act of 1964, for example, the
Congress generally prohibited the use of all motorized vehicles in
congressionally designated wilderness areas. The four agencies collectively
manage over 100 million acres of federally designated wilderness areas.
Agency Regulations and When no laws specifically authorize or prohibit the
use of personal
Policies for Determining watercraft and snowmobiles, the federal agencies
determine whether the
Use Vary lands and waters they manage are open or closed to such use-
generally on
a unit- by- unit basis. The regulations and policies that guide these
decisions vary greatly among the agencies according to each agency's
legislative mandate.
The National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service- whose primary
mission is to preserve and protect the resources they manage- generally
prohibit these vehicles unless it can be clearly demonstrated that they will
not cause harm and/ or their use is consistent with the purposes of the
unit. For example, the National Park Service's regulations on personal
watercraft, effective April 2000, ban them from all areas of the National
Park System except in 21 parks where they are specifically allowed, pending
evaluations of resource impacts and user conflicts, as well as sitespecific
rulemaking. Concerning snowmobiles, the National Park Service's regulations
generally prohibit them in all units of the National Park System except in
areas that have been designated as open to their use in special regulations
and when that use is consistent with the park's objectives and safety and
resource considerations. In April 2000, the Assistant Secretary for Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks announced that the National Park Service would take
additional steps to significantly curtail the use of snowmobiles in the
national parks. As part of this effort, the National Park Service is
preparing new snowmobile regulations that would allow limited use to
continue in some of the 45 units that currently have special regulations for
snowmobiles. However, the proposed regulations would prohibit the use of
snowmobiles in all other parks, with few exceptions. For the Fish and
Wildlife Service, by law, all refuges are closed to all recreational uses,
including personal watercraft and snowmobile use, until such use is
determined to be compatible with the purposes of each individual refuge as
well as with the wildlife conservation mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge System. The Fish and Wildlife Service is currently developing a new
policy on the appropriate uses of its refuges that will address the use of
personal watercraft and snowmobiles. The agency expects to issue the policy
for public comment this fall. In contrast, the Forest Service and the Bureau
of Land Management, with their mandate to manage land and water for multiple
uses, generally allow the recreational use of these vehicles unless harm or
potential harm is clearly demonstrated. Concerning snowmobiles, the Forest
Service's
regulations generally allow snowmobiles unless individual units determine
that their use causes “considerable adverse effects” to
resources (soil, water, vegetation, fish, or wildlife) or other visitors.
The Bureau of Land Management's regulations require individual units to
designate all lands managed by the Bureau as open, limited, or closed to
off- road vehicles,
including snowmobiles, after considering resource protection issues, visitor
safety, and minimizing conflict among various uses. According to the Group
Manager of Recreation at the Bureau of Land Management, individual units
have rarely designated areas specifically for snowmobile use. Instead, the
units typically allow visitors to use snowmobiles unless very high levels of
use are found to impair resources or cause user conflicts. According to
agency officials, both agencies typically consider water bodies open to
personal watercraft use, until the agency or another entity- such as a
state- determines otherwise. Currently, the Forest Service has no plans to
change its policies on personal watercraft and
snowmobile use, which direct its unit managers to make these decisions
through the forest planning process. While the Bureau of Land Management is
developing a new national strategy to manage off- highway vehicle use,
Bureau officials have not yet determined if the new strategy will address
personal watercraft or snowmobiles.
Personal Watercraft and As a result of either provisions in law or specific
use determinations,
Snowmobile Use Is survey respondents reported that 367 of the 777 units, or
47 percent, with Prohibited in a Significant
capacity for use have prohibited recreational use of personal watercraft, or
Number of Federal Units snowmobiles, or both. (See table 3.) The most common
reasons cited for prohibiting personal watercraft and snowmobiles was that
their use was inconsistent or incompatible with a unit's purpose. For
example, at Cape Hatteras National Seashore, in addition to concerns about
the impact of personal watercraft on wildlife, water pollution, and safety,
the park's superintendent found that the use of personal watercraft
conflicted with the majority of other long- standing uses of the park, such
as surf fishing, bird watching, and appreciating the natural shore. The
superintendent found that the noise personal watercraft created was
inconsistent with the
“primitive wilderness” intent of the seashore, as provided for
by the Congress when the park was established. As a result, in May 1999, the
park superintendent banned personal watercraft in this park.
Other reasons cited for prohibiting personal watercraft and snowmobile use
included the protection of wildlife and plants, such as endangered or
threatened species. The Endangered Species Act prohibits taking (i. e.,
killing, harming, or harassing) any federally listed species. For example,
the Colville National Forest in Washington State and the Panhandle National
Forests in Idaho contain a recovery zone for the federally listed endangered
woodland caribou. After the caribou herd was twice displaced by snowmobiles,
the Forest Service closed portions of this habitat to snowmobile use in
order to protect the caribou and its habitat from harm.
Table 3: Total Prohibitions of Use by Agency and Vehicle Type Type of
vehicle and number of units reporting total prohibitions
Percentage of units Personal
Both with capacity
Units with watercraft
Snowmobiles personal watercraft
reporting total Agency capacity
only only and snowmobiles Total
prohibitions a
Bureau of Land 90 2 0 0 2 2 Management Fish and Wildlife
350 127 37 56 220 63 Service National Park 182 66 33 13 112 62
Service Forest Service 155 28 4 1 33 21
Total 777 223 74 70 367 47
a Agencies may not have clear authority to prohibit use in all areas of
their units where the capacity for use exists. Managers of Federal Units
According to our survey results, in many cases entities other than the
Report They Lack Clear
federal land management agencies determine whether personal watercraft
Authority to Control Some or snowmobiles can be used in federal units. Units
reported that the federal Use agency lacks clear authority to allow or
disallow use in part or all of 300 of the 475 units (or 63 percent) that
reported use of personal watercraft and/ or snowmobiles. Lack of authority
was more common for personal
watercraft than for snowmobiles. Table 4: Units Reporting Lack of Authority
to Control Use Units reporting lack of authority
Percentage of Personal
Both units with use
Units with watercraft
Snowmobiles personal watercraft
reporting lack of Agency use
only only and snowmobiles Total
authority
Bureau of Land Management 79 48 5 6 59 75 Fish and Wildlife Service 158 74
11 24 109 69 National Park Service 101 28 11 4 43 43 Forest Service 137 67 3
19 89 65
Total 475 217 30 53 300 63
As shown in table 4, over half of the units with use reported they lacked
authority to prohibit personal watercraft use in bodies of water that are
located entirely or partially within a federal unit. This was most common
for the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, and the Fish and
Wildlife Service. Officials at these agencies said that, under certain laws,
such as the Submerged Lands Act, authority to decide how the surface of
certain bodies of water could be used often rests with other entities,
primarily states. For example, the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife
Refuge includes many islands off the Florida coast, but the Fish and
Wildlife Service controls use of only the islands, not the surrounding
stateowned waters. For snowmobiles, almost one- third of units reported a
lack of authority for determining their use for some or all the lands within
a unit. The Fish and Wildlife Service units, which most frequently reported
this, cited instances in which they cannot control use to include lands
managed through easements- such as for state or county roads- or lands
leased or obtained through other agreements. 4 Operations Often
In about one- half of the 475 federal units where the recreational use of
Restricted, but personal watercraft or snowmobiles occurred, the operation
of these vehicles is restricted in some manner. These restrictions include,
among Enforcement Is
other things, speed limits, minimum age requirements for operation, and
Limited
licensing requirements. Although federal land management agencies impose
operating restrictions, each agency or its individual units have, in most
cases, adopted state operating restrictions. In addition, other federal
agencies have authority to set safety or environmental standards for the
vehicles, such as the pollution limits set by the Environmental Protection
Agency for personal watercraft. Enforcement of these restrictions is
generally a shared responsibility among federal, state, and local law
enforcement officials. However, many unit managers reported insufficient
personnel to adequately enforce restrictions.
4 In certain cases, the federal land management agencies may be able to
control the use of personal watercraft and snowmobiles on nonfederal lands
and waters. Federal courts have upheld the federal government's regulation
of activities on nonfederal land and waters when reasonably necessary to
protect federal property. See for example, Stupak- Thrall v. United States,
70 F. 3d 881 (6th Cir. 1995).
Restrictions Come From A number of units reported operating restrictions for
both types of
Federal, State, and Local vehicles. In units where personal watercraft use
occurred, about one- half Entities
of the units reported some form of restrictions. The most frequent
restrictions for personal watercraft included (1) minimum age requirements
for operators, (2) confinement of use to certain areas within the unit, and
(3) prohibitions on use during certain hours. Where snowmobile use occurs,
almost 60 percent of the units reported restrictions. The restrictions
mentioned most frequently included (1) noise restrictions, such as limits on
the volume of noise a machine can emit as measured in decibels, (2) operator
license and certification requirements, and (3) speed limits on use in some
areas of the unit. See appendix II for more detailed information on personal
watercraft and snowmobile restrictions.
States, rather than federal agencies, were cited most frequently by units as
the source of restrictions on the operation of personal watercraft and
snowmobiles. The National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service
adopt state laws concerning personal watercraft use. While the Bureau of
Land Management and the Forest Service have no nationwide federal
restrictions specific to personal watercraft operations, some individual
units have established site- specific restrictions. These two agencies
generally defer to states on restricting personal watercraft use. All four
of the federal land management agencies adopt applicable state laws for
snowmobile operation. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency has
authority to limit the environmental pollution generated by personal
watercraft and snowmobiles. For example, the agency has set air emission
standards for personal watercraft that require manufacturers to reduce some
air emissions from new engines by up to 75 percent. The Environmental
Protection Agency is also in the process of proposing air emission
standards for snowmobiles. According to officials at the Environmental
Protection Agency, regulation of water pollution from personal watercraft
and snowmobiles, like regulation of other nonpoint source water pollution,
is generally a state responsibility. The agency does, however, set
management measures for marina operations in approximately 30 coastal
states. These measures include fueling station requirements and no wake
zones to reduce water pollution generated by personal watercraft and other
motorized boats. States must implement these or equally stringent management
measures in order to receive a designated portion of the federal funds
available for state water pollution programs. While the Environmental
Protection Agency formerly had a role in regulating noise
emissions from both vehicles, the closure of its Office of Noise Control and
Abatement in 1982 left those responsibilities primarily to state and local
governments, according to an official at the agency. In addition, the
National Park Service has set noise standards for its parks. The agency
prohibits snowmobiles that make “excessive noise” according to
the age of the vehicle and the noise emitted at full throttle.
The Coast Guard also has authority to restrict the operation of personal
watercraft. According to a Coast Guard official, the agency sets safety
standards for the operation of personal watercraft that apply to all waters
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. These requirements,
according to Coast Guard officials, relate mostly to various safety issues,
such as the carriage and use of life jackets, speed limits, and setting
design safety standards for personal watercraft. Multiple Jurisdictions
Enforcement of operating restrictions varies depending on the type of
Enforce Restrictions, but jurisdiction that exists within the federal unit.
In many cases, enforcement Shortage of Enforcement
is a responsibility shared among the federal units, states, and in some
Personnel Exists
cases, local governments. This occurs because authority for setting
restrictions is retained by the three levels of government. In a few
instances, primarily among the National Park Service's units, unit managers
may have exclusive jurisdiction- that is, state and local laws do not apply
within the unit, and only the federal government can establish and enforce
federal laws within the boundaries of the unit.
No matter who had enforcement authority, between two- thirds and
threequarters of the units responding to our questionnaire indicated that
the number of law enforcement personnel at the federal, state, and local
levels is not adequate for enforcing existing restrictions on personal
watercraft or snowmobile use. For units with personal watercraft use, 68
percent
reported inadequate law enforcement personnel. For units with snowmobile
use, 74 percent cited inadequate law enforcement personnel. For example, the
Shoshone National Forest in Wyoming has only two Forest Service law
enforcement officers to cover 2. 2 million acres of forest, including
hundreds of square miles of wilderness. As a result, even though snowmobile
users trespass into wilderness areas, enforcing such snowmobile restrictions
is nearly impossible, according to Forest Service officials.
Agencies Have Done About 60 percent of the units that have recreational use
of personal
Little to Assess the watercraft and/ or snowmobiles reported that the units
have not collected
any information on the impacts of that use. In addition, of the remaining 40
Impacts of percent of the units whose respondents said such information has
been
Recreational Use on collected, about half reported the information was less
than adequate to Their Units' Resources
determine how personal watercraft and snowmobile use should be managed. The
limited amount of information on the impacts of these vehicles is reflective
of the low priority that these agencies have given to monitoring the effects
of the recreational use of these vehicles. This has
occurred largely because, in the past, only a few federal units had high
levels of use. However, increasing numbers of personal watercraft and recent
technological changes that allow snowmobiles to travel to more remote and
environmentally sensitive areas have raised concerns that these vehicles'
use results in adverse environmental impacts, safety concerns, and conflicts
with other users. Agencies Have Authority to
In general, the federal land management agencies are responsible for Assess
the Impacts of
managing federal lands and waters so that allowed activities do not Personal
Watercraft and
adversely affect natural resources and the environment. Concerning the
Snowmobile Use
use of recreation vehicles, Executive Order 11644 specifically requires each
agency to (1) designate areas as open or closed to off- highway vehicles,
including snowmobiles, in order to protect the resources of the federal
lands, promote safety, and minimize conflict among the various users; (2)
monitor the effects of use on lands under its jurisdiction, once use is
allowed; and (3) amend or rescind any area designation on the basis of the
information gathered. Furthermore, Executive Order 11989 requires each
agency to close areas to use when they determine that use causes, or will
cause, considerable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife,
habitat, or cultural or historic resources.
Monitoring requirements for personal watercraft are not as clear. According
to officials at the four agencies, the executive orders do not apply
specifically to personal watercraft. However, under enabling legislation and
land- use planning and environmental legislation, each agency has the
authority to assess the condition of the resources it manages and to monitor
activities that may have an adverse effect on natural resources and the
environment. The type or amount of information needed to adequately monitor
the impact of the use of snowmobiles or personal watercraft is not
specifically
defined. Concerning snowmobiles, the executive orders do not define what
monitoring is required once use is permitted. For personal watercraft,
monitoring requirements are even less defined, because agency officials
reported that the executive orders do not apply. Units responding to our
questionnaire identified a wide range of information on the impact of
personal watercraft and snowmobile use on natural resources and the
environment. The information ranged from complex site- specific scientific
studies to reviews of general studies on their use at other locations, to
staff
recording personal observations on the impact of their use. According to
agency officials, managers of the individual units are best suited to
determine how much information is needed to make informed decisions on the
use of personal watercraft and snowmobiles. Units Report Limited
Nearly 60 percent (or 264 of 475) of the units that had personal watercraft
Assessment of the Impacts and/ or snowmobile use reported that they had
collected no information on of Personal Watercraft and the impacts of this
use on the unit's resources and environment. This lack Snowmobile Use
of information occurred more frequently among units with personal watercraft
use (about 73 percent) than units with snowmobile use (about 52 percent).
Without such information, the agencies are not in compliance with Executive
Orders 11644 and 11989 concerning snowmobiles and, concerning personal
watercraft, they have no assurance that they are fulfilling their
responsibilities to protect their units' resources and environment from
adverse impacts. Only about 40 percent of the units (211 of 475) with
recreational use of
personal watercraft or snowmobiles reported having some information on the
effects of that use. (See table 5.) Specifically, 64 units reported that
they had either site- specific studies or information from studies conducted
elsewhere to assess the potential impacts of use at their individual units,
and 147 units reported that staff had observed and recorded some information
on personal watercraft or snowmobile impacts. Among the agencies, the Forest
Service and the National Park Service had the greatest percentage of their
units with use collecting some information-
approximately 58 and 54 percent, respectively. However, even when units
reported having such information, about half (45 percent for units with
personal watercraft use and 52 percent for units with snowmobile use) said
their information was inadequate for determining how to manage the use of
these vehicles. For example, each winter, an estimated 330,000 visitors to
the Pike and San Isabel National Forest in Colorado use snowmobiles. In the
past, the unit's recreation manager has relied on snowmobile studies
performed at other locations to assess the impact of their use in this
forest.
However, in 1998, the Canadian lynx was reintroduced to this and five other
national forests in Colorado. As a result, the recreation manager believes
that studies performed at other locations will not be sufficient to assess
the impact of snowmobiles on the lynx, currently listed as a threatened
species. According to the manager, the forest lacks important site- specific
information on such issues as the impact of snowmobile operations and
related snow compaction on the lynx's habitat, feeding patterns, and
competitor species. Table 5: Information on Impacts, by Agency and by Type
of Information
Units reporting some information collected Percentage Studies at the unit
Personal of units reporting some Agency Units with use or elsewhere
observations only Total
information collected
Bureau of Land 79 4 20 24 30 Management Fish and Wildlife
158 9 43 52 33 Service National Park Service 101 25 30 55 54
Forest Service 137 26 54 80 58
Total 475 64 147 211 44
For units that indicated that a site- specific study had been conducted for
the unit or that studies done elsewhere were used to assess potential
impacts at the unit, our questionnaire asked them to provide citations
(title, author, date) for each of these studies. A list of all the studies
identified by the four agencies is contained in appendix III. Among the four
agencies, the National Park Service, particularly Yellowstone National Park,
identified the vast majority of these studies. The National Park Service has
also summarized much of this information 5 and used, or is using it, to
develop its regulations that place greater limitations on where personal
watercraft and snowmobiles can be used and that require monitoring of
impacts where use is allowed.
5 Some of the summary reports prepared by the National Park Service include:
Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage, May 1999; Air
Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage in National Parks, Feb. 2000;
Potential Water Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage, Aug. 1999; and
Effects of Snowmobiles on Wildlife, Nov. 1999.
Agencies Have Not Made Officials from all four land management agencies said
they have not Collecting Impact conducted more studies or monitored the use
of these vehicles largely
Information a Priority because they lack adequate resources or expertise.
The limited resources
allocated for this effort reflect the low priority the agencies have given
to monitoring the effects of the recreational use of these vehicles.
According to agency officials, this has occurred largely because,
historically, few federal units experienced high levels of use of these
vehicles. However, in the past decade the number of these vehicles has
increased, as has their ability to reach remote and environmentally
sensitive areas. For example,
in 1987, according to industry estimates, about 92, 700 personal watercraft
were in use in the United States. By 1998, this number had increased to 1.1
million. According to industry estimates, the number of snowmobiles in use
has increased from approximately 1 million in 1987 to more than 1.4 million
in 1998. In addition, the technology for snowmobiles has changed in recent
years, dramatically increasing their range and access to remote and
highaltitude
terrain, areas that were largely inaccessible to older snowmobiles. Although
specific data on the amount of recreational use on federal lands are not
available, agency officials said they believed use had generally increased
in the past 10 years. The following provides examples of the low priority
that the four land management agencies have assigned to monitoring the
effects of personal
watercraft and snowmobile use: The Park Service's April 2000 final rule
banning the use of personal
watercraft in some of its units states, “Over the years, [National
Park Service] areas have been impacted with new, and what often prove to be
controversial, recreational activities. These recreational activities tend
to gain a foothold in [National Park Service] areas in their infancy, before
a full evaluation of the possible impacts and ramifications that expanded
use will have on the area can be initiated, completed, and
considered. Personal watercraft use fits this category.” Concerning
the agency's monitoring of snowmobiles, in May 2000, the Assistant Secretary
for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks at the Department of the Interior stated,
“Over the past two decades, the National Park Service has neglected to
consistently apply or enforce its own national snowmobile regulations, or to
adhere to the requirements of existing executive orders regarding off- road
vehicle use, including snowmobiles.” This included not assessing the
impacts of snowmobiles before allowing their use and not monitoring those
impacts once use was allowed. The Bureau of Land Management's Group Manager
for Recreation told us that most of the agency's units have not monitored
the use or effects
of these vehicles because of resource constraints. Specifically, the Bureau
of Land Management does not have enough individuals “on the
ground” to do that work. For example, both personal watercraft and
snowmobile use has been increasing at the Little Snake Field Office in
Colorado. According to the unit manager, such use is having a negative
impact on wildlife and other visitors, such as hikers and cross- country
skiers. However, because the unit has only two outdoor recreation staff to
manage 1.3 million acres, it has not been able to conduct any studies or
specifically monitor the impacts of vehicle use. Fish and Wildlife Service
and Forest Service officials have expressed
similar concerns about limited resources to fund research studies or
monitoring. In addition, Fish and Wildlife Service officials voiced concern
that the agency lacks sufficient staff at most of its units to design
monitoring programs for the use of these vehicles on the lands and waters
they manage. Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service officials also
said that they have given a higher priority to monitoring impacts of other
offhighway
vehicles, such as all- terrain vehicles and motorcycles. In their opinion,
these vehicles generally cause more observable damage to soil and water and
receive more public attention than personal watercraft or
snowmobiles. Of the four agencies, the National Park Service has recently
made monitoring the impacts of vehicle use a higher priority. In the case of
personal watercraft, the agency has allowed their use only in selected parks
pending an evaluation of resource and other impacts, and in the case of
snowmobiles, the agency has reiterated the need to comply with the
executive orders, including monitoring of vehicle use. In addition, in a May
2000 memorandum to all units, the Forest Service's Deputy Chief of the
National Forest System reiterated agency policy concerning the need to
adequately monitor off- highway vehicle use, including snowmobiles, to
ensure public safety and prevent environmental degradation.
Existing Impact Information When federal land management agencies and others
have completed Has Identified Adverse
studies on the impact of personal watercraft and snowmobile use, the Effects
results have raised concerns about their adverse effect on the environment,
public safety, and conflicts with other users. For example: In May 1999, the
National Park Service's Cape Hatteras National
Seashore in North Carolina banned the use of personal watercraft within the
unit. The prohibition was based on staff observations and a
review of 112 studies from other locations on the impact of pleasure boats
and personal watercraft. In evaluating this information, the park
superintendent found that personal watercraft were already altering
major uses of the park and that conflicts between personal watercraft users
and commercial and recreational fishermen were well documented. Also, the
superintendent found that personal watercraft noise pollution significantly
diminished the enjoyment of such traditional uses of the seashore as beach
walking, swimming, bird watching, surfing, and windsurfing. Other concerns
were raised about the effects of personal watercraft use on the seashore's
natural, aesthetic, scenic, and cultural values and the high hydrocarbon
emissions from these vehicles into the air and water. The superintendent
concluded that, if left unchecked, the growth of personal watercraft use
would severely alter the unit's traditional use patterns. As part of a
court- ordered winter- use planning effort at Yellowstone and
Grand Teton National Parks, the National Park Service is completing a
comprehensive environmental impact statement addressing all types of winter
use in these parks, including snowmobiles. 6 For the impact statement, the
National Park Service has analyzed much of the available
information on the impacts of snowmobiles on the parks' resources and other
values. These studies were conducted at the two parks and elsewhere and were
completed by the National Park Service and others. As a result, the agency
found that the use of snowmobiles has had significant adverse effects,
including increasing the levels of air and
noise pollution, disturbing wildlife, and conflicting with visitors'
solitude. For example, a National Park Service study reported that although
cars outnumber snowmobiles 16 to 1 in Yellowstone National Park in the
winter, snowmobiles generate between 68 and 90 percent of all hydrocarbons
and 35 to 69 percent of all carbon monoxide released
in the park. Furthermore, other studies conducted or reviewed by the agency
showed that a snowmobile's rapid movements stress native wildlife during
winter- the time of highest wildlife mortality. Agency studies also showed
that during the winter the noise from snowmobiles has a major impact on the
natural quiet in the park. For example, on two heavily traveled trails in
Yellowstone, one of which is a major route to Old Faithful, it was reported
that a visitor would hear a snowmobile more than 50 percent of the time.
6 Winter Use Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Yellowstone
and Grand Teton National Parks and John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial
Parkway, National Park Service (July 1999).
In a 1992 management agreement, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the state
of Florida prohibited the use of personal watercraft within specified areas
of water surrounding the Key West, Great White Heron,
and National Key Deer wildlife refuges. According to the Fish and Wildlife
Service, this prohibition was based on general scientific literature
relevant to the potential impacts of human activity on wildlife and one Fish
and Wildlife Service biologist's observations of birds fleeing their nests
in response to the use of personal watercraft. The agency concluded that
personal watercraft had made previously inaccessible areas and wildlife in
those areas susceptible to adverse
impacts, thus threatening the ability of the refuges to achieve their
primary purpose- the protection of wildlife. The management agreement
between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the state of Florida
also identified conflicts between personal watercraft and other uses of the
refuges, such as shallow water fishing, as a problem.
Information on safety- related impacts from the use of personal watercraft
and snowmobiles has also been collected. For example, a 1998 study by the
National Transportation Safety Board, citing data from the Coast Guard,
found that personal watercraft used in 1996 were only 7.5 percent of state-
registered recreational boats, yet they accounted for 36 percent of the
reported recreational boating accidents and more than 41 percent of the
persons injured in recreational boating accidents. In addition, although the
number of recreational boating fatalities has declined, the number of
personal watercraft fatalities has increased. From 1990 through 1996, for
example, recreational boating fatalities (including personal watercraft)
declined 18 percent, while personal watercraft fatalities increased over 200
percent. For snowmobiles, a 1997 study by the U. S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission found that from 1990 through 1996, over 9,000 users
were treated in hospital emergency rooms, and from 1993 through 1995, 333
fatalities resulted from snowmobile use. Conclusions Among the four major
federal land management agencies, the National Park Service has done the
most to control the use of personal watercraft and snowmobiles within its
units. Recently, the National Park Service has
issued stricter policies on where personal watercraft and snowmobiles can
and cannot be used within its units. Also, the National Park Service,
concerning both vehicles, and the Forest Service, for snowmobiles, have
recently emphasized that existing executive orders, regulations, and laws
require the monitoring of these vehicles' impacts where use is allowed.
However, each of the four land management agencies has continued to
allow the use of these vehicles in many of its units with little or no
information on the effects, if any, these vehicles are having on its units'
resources and environment. While we recognize that the agencies have limited
resources, in our opinion, it is difficult to properly manage the use
of these vehicles if units have no or inadequate information on their
impact. Furthermore, without such information, these agencies are not in
compliance with the monitoring requirements of existing executive orders
concerning snowmobiles and, concerning personal watercraft, are not
assured that they are fulfilling their responsibility to protect the lands
and waters they manage from adverse impacts. Because the type and extent of
information needed to adequately monitor the use of these vehicles is not
clearly defined in existing executive orders, regulations, and laws, federal
land management agencies have the flexibility to design monitoring
requirements that fit the needs of their individual units. These
requirements can range from detailed scientific studies on some issues such
as vehicle emissions- whose results could be applied to all units- to
individual staff observations. However, it is essential that each agency and
its unit managers have enough information to make knowledgeable decisions
about the recreational use of these vehicles. Recommendations We recommend
that the Secretaries of the Interior and of Agriculture ensure that, where
snowmobile and personal watercraft use occurs on
federal lands, agencies under their jurisdiction monitor such use to
determine what impact, if any, these recreational vehicles are having on
natural resources, public safety, and the visiting public. This monitoring
should be designed to provide sufficient information to make knowledgeable
decisions on the impact of these vehicles in individual units. We further
recommend that once this information is collected, it be
used in any future decisions on whether personal watercraft and snowmobiles
are to be allowed on federal lands and waters, and if so, how their use
should be managed.
Agency Comments and We provided copies of a draft of this report to the
Department of the Our Evaluation
Interior and the Department of Agriculture for their review and comment. We
received letters commenting on the report from the Department of the
Interior, including comments from the National Park Service, the Bureau of
Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U. S. Geological
Survey, and from the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service.
The Department of the Interior generally agreed with the report's findings
and recommendations. The Bureau of Land Management, however, expressed
concern that the report's discussion of federal authority to control or
restrict the use of personal watercraft was confusing.
Furthermore, the Bureau was concerned that our survey questions on this
issue were unclear, which could result in data that do not accurately
reflect their field office managers' knowledge concerning such authorities.
We acknowledge that the issue of authority to control or restrict the use of
personal watercraft within federal units is complex, and we revised the
report to help clarify this issue. Concerning the clarity of the questions
on authority in our questionnaire, we worked extensively with Bureau
officials to design a clear survey instrument. To ensure that the questions
were understood, we pretested the questionnaire at units of each agency
surveyed. We also designed the questionnaire so that if a respondent had a
question, that person could immediately send us an electronic message to
clarify the issue. Furthermore, we established a dedicated telephone number
that unit managers could call if they needed personal assistance in
completing the questionnaire. We believe the resulting questions were
straightforward and that our report accurately presents the responses of the
Bureau's field managers.
The Bureau of Land Management also expressed concern about what it perceived
as an inconsistency in the number of Bureau responses to various questions,
which it believes casts a shadow over the reliability of the data. As often
occurs in surveys, Bureau field managers did not respond to every question.
As a result, the number of Bureau respondents to each
question varied. However, the differences among the number of responses to
each question in our questionnaire are acceptable for a survey of this type
and do not affect the quality of the responses. In commenting on the draft
report, the Fish and Wildlife Service used the report's data to conclude
that most of its units are in compliance with executive orders for managing
off- road vehicles. While we agree that some of the Service's units are in
compliance with the executive orders, we do not agree that only a few of the
Service's units are out of compliance. For
example, the Service believes that all of its responding units that stated
they lack authority to control the use of recreational vehicles should not
be considered out of compliance with the executive orders. However, only a
small percentage of these units said their lack of authority applied to both
vehicles and in all areas of the unit. As a result, most of the units that
the Service considered in compliance because of lack of authority actually
do
have authority to regulate and control the use of at least one of these
vehicles in at least some portion of their unit. The Fish and Wildlife
Service also emphasized that it has a myriad of legal responsibilities under
various laws and regulations and is limited in what it can do to monitor the
impact of recreational vehicle use by finite fiscal resources. However, the
Service stated that it intends to issue a Director's Order by December 31,
2000, that will require all units in the National Wildlife Refuge System
that have the authority to control personal watercraft and snowmobile use to
prohibit such use unless or until a monitoring program is in place. The
National Park Service had no specific comments and generally agreed with the
report. The U. S. Geological Survey suggested a technical clarification to
the report that we incorporated.
The Department of Agriculture's Forest Service suggested language to clarify
our discussion of factors affecting the decision to allow the use of
personal watercraft and snowmobiles in federal units, which we incorporated
into the report as appropriate.
The Department of the Interior's written comments and our detailed response
to them are in appendix IV of this report, and the Department of
Agriculture's written comments are in appendix V.
As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after
the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the Honorable
Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior; the Honorable Dan Glickman,
Secretary of Agriculture; the Honorable Robert Stanton, Director, National
Park
Service; the Honorable Tom Fry, Director, Bureau of Land Management; the
Honorable Jamie Rappaport Clark, Director, Fish and Wildlife Service; the
Honorable Mike Dombeck, Chief, Forest Service; the Honorable Jacob J. Lew,
Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested
parties. We will also make copies available to others upon request.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me
at (202) 512- 8021. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix
VI.
Barry T. Hill Associate Director, Energy,
Resources, and Science Issues
Appendi Appendi xes x I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology At the request of Representatives Bruce
F. Vento and George Miller, we reviewed the recreational use of personal
watercraft and snowmobiles in our nation's parks, forests, wildlife refuges,
and other federal lands. Specifically, we agreed to determine (1) the extent
to which these vehicles are used in federal units managed by the Bureau of
Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park
Service within the Department of the Interior and the Department of
Agriculture's Forest Service; (2) what are the bases for agency decisions to
authorize or prohibit the use of these vehicles; (3) where these vehicles
are allowed, what restrictions exist on their operation, and how these
restrictions are
enforced; and (4) to what extent these agencies have assessed the impact of
such use. To respond to the request, we developed an automated questionnaire
that we posted on GAO's website. We sent e- mail messages to managers of
1,191 Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park
Service, and Forest Service units asking them to access and fill out the
questionnaire providing us with information about personal watercraft and
snowmobile use on the lands and waters that they administer. Specifically,
we asked for responses from each unit manager at 120 field offices managed
by the Bureau of Land Management; 523 wildlife refuges managed by the Fish
and Wildlife Service; 372 national parks, seashores, recreation
areas, battlefields, historic sites, monuments, and preserves managed by the
National Park Service; and 176 national forests and grasslands managed by
the Forest Service. We did not ask all of the agencies' units to participate
because, according to officials at each agency, some types of their units-
such as fish hatcheries and technology centers- were known not to have the
recreational use of personal watercraft or snowmobiles.
In addition, we met with headquarters and individual unit officials from the
Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service,
and Forest Service to discuss their oversight of personal watercraft and
snowmobile use on the lands and waters they administer.
Specifically, we visited with unit officials at the Bureau of Land
Management's Medford District Office in Oregon and Coos Bay District Office
in Oregon, the National Park Service's Cape Hatteras National
Seashore in North Carolina, Olympic National Park in Washington, and
Voyageurs National Park in Minnesota; and the Forest Service's Allegheny
National Forest in Pennsylvania, Deschutes National Forest in Oregon, and
Superior National Forest in Minnesota. At each location, we obtained,
reviewed, and analyzed supporting documentation such as laws, regulations,
executive orders, reports, and studies. We also met with
officials from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U. S. Coast
Guard and the Council on Environmental Quality to obtain information on
existing regulations used to control and direct personal watercraft and
snowmobile use on federally administered lands and waters. Finally, we met
with the California Air Resources Board, the National Association of State
Boating Law Administrators, the Personal Watercraft Industry Association,
the American Council of Snowmobile Associations, The Fund
for Animals, Inc., the Bluewater Network, and the National Parks
Conservation Association to gain a better understanding of the personal
watercraft and snowmobile issues.
The questionnaire consisted of four sections of questions. Specifically:
Section I asked for general information about each land management
unit, such as its name and the number of visitor days the unit had during
fiscal year 1999. Section II asked for information about bodies of water
either on or directly adjacent to each unit's land that support or could
potentially support personal watercraft use.
Section III asked for information about units that have the capacity
(adequate snowfall in an average year and suitable terrain) to support
visitor use of snowmobiles. Section IV asked for information about the
respondent and provided an
opportunity for the respondent to make additional comments concerning any of
the questions or on any topics not covered.
The entire questionnaire and the responses from the four agencies are
provided in appendix II.
During our design of the survey, we conducted eight pretests with agency
officials to ensure that they understood the questions and could easily
access and complete the questionnaire via our website. After each pretest,
necessary revisions were made to the questionnaire. Two pretests were
administered to agency officials from each of the four land management
agencies. Once completed, the electronic questionnaire was made available
to all unit managers via GAO's website on the Internet. To ensure security
and data integrity, we provided each manager with a password that would
allow him or her to access and complete a questionnaire for the management
unit. No one else could access that questionnaire or edit its data. Also,
after transmitting a completed
questionnaire, the unit manager could not change any of the data.
We made the questionnaire accessible to unit managers from March 31 through
June 9, 2000. We designed the questionnaire so that if a respondent had a
question, that person could immediately send us an electronic message, and
we would provide an answer. We also established a dedicated telephone number
that unit managers could call if they needed personal assistance in
completing the questionnaire. Table 6 shows the response
rate we received.
Table 6: Response Rate for Personal Watercraft and Snowmobile Use Survey
Agency Units Responses received Percentage
Bureau of Land 120 103 85. 8 Management Fish and Wildlife
523 419 80. 1 Service National Park 372 328 88. 2
Service Forest Service 176 168 95. 4
Total 1, 191 1, 018 85. 5
Because of the time and cost to do so, we did not independently verify the
data that the unit managers provided. However, we did ask the managers to
identify the studies that document the types of environmental impacts
associated with personal watercraft and snowmobile use on the lands and
waters they administer.
To ensure the consistency and accuracy of our data, we conducted edit checks
to verify that the appropriate questions on the questionnaire had been
answered. For example, if a unit manager responded that the unit did not
have capacity for snowmobile use, yet answered the questions pertaining to
snowmobile use, we contacted the manager to determine the
reason for the inconsistency. In addition, we reviewed each completed
questionnaire to ensure that it included information for only one unit. For
those that responded for more than one unit, we weighted the responses
appropriately.
We conducted our review from May 1999 through August 2000 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendi x II Survey Questions and Response
Studies and Documents Identified by Federal Units About the Impacts of
Personal
Appendi x II I Watercraft and Snowmobiles The following list of studies and
other documents were identified by the federal units that responded to our
questionnaire as containing information on the effects of personal
watercraft and/ or snowmobiles on natural resources and the environment.
According to the unit managers of these
organizations, the studies are either (1) site- specific studies conducted
by their organizations or (2) studies done by other entities that their
organizations have reviewed and relied upon to assess the potential
impacts of personal watercraft and/ or snowmobiles. The citations, which
have not been verified by GAO, are grouped by the identifying agency and
listed in chronological order. They are presented as the agency provided the
information, except for minor changes for editorial consistency. Some of the
studies are old; others are unpublished documents, drafts, or works
in progress. Personal Watercraft Fish and Wildlife Service Fish and Wildlife
Service . Environmental Impact Assessment: Effect of Boating on Management
of Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Portland,
OR.: June 1976. Dahlgren, R. B. and C. E. Korschgen. Human Disturbances of
Waterfowl: An Annotated Bibliography. Fish and Wildlife Service. Resource
Publication 188, 1992.
Department of Interior. Recreational Boating Disturbances of Natural
Communities and Wildlife: An Annotated Bibliography. National Biological
Survey. Biological Report 22, May 1994.
Tahoe Research Group. The Use of Two- Cycle Engine Watercraft on Lake Tahoe:
Water Quality and Limnological Considerations. Report to the Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency, Lake Tahoe, CA: 1997.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. Environmental Assessment for the Prohibition
of Certain Two- Stroke Powered Watercraft. Jan. 1999. Forest Service
“Effects of Jet Boats on Salmon Eggs,” New Zealand Journal of
Marine and
Freshwater Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 273- 282.
Slone, Timothy D., K. Chillman, and G. Brown. A Study of Boating Recreation
on Cave Run Lake, Kentucky. Department of Forestry, Southern Illinois
University- Carbondale. Vogel, James. A Survey of Boaters at Laurel River
Lake, Kentucky Daniel Boone National Forest. Sutherland and Ogle . MDC
Statewide Angler Surveys. Missouri Department of Conservation, Fish and
Wildlife Research Center, Columbia: 1975.
Bush, Jane . Relative Physical Impacts of Jet Boats, Prop Boats, and Canoes
in an Ozark Stream. Dec. 1988. National Forest Service. Wild and Scenic
Snake River Recreation Management Plan: Hells Canyon National Recreation
Area. WallowaWhitman National Forest: 1994.
National Forest Service. Environmental Assessment for Pineview Reservoir
Management and Facility Improvements. Cache National Forest, Ogden Ranger
District: 1998.
National Park Service Ellison, L. N. and L. Cleary. “Effects of Human
Disturbance on Breeding of Double- Crested Cormorants,” The Auk. Vol.
95, No. 3, pp. 510- 517 and Auk,
Vol. 96, No. 4, (1978), pp. 815- 817. Manuwal, D. A. “Effects of Man
on Marine Birds: A Review,” Proceedings of 4th J. S. Wright Forestry
Conference, Purdue University, 1978, pp. 140- 60.
Duffy, D. C. and L. N. Ellison. Human Disturbance and Breeding Birds. 1979.
Anderson, D. W. and J. O. Keith . “The Human Influence on Seabird
Nesting Success: Conservation Implications ,” Biological Conservation.
Vol. 18, No. 1 (1980), pp. 65- 80.
Cairns, D. “Nesting Density, Habitat Structure, and Human Disturbance
as Factors in Black Guillemot Reproduction,” Wilson Bulletin. Vol. 92,
No. 3 (1980), pp. 352- 361. Robertson, R. J. and N. J. Flood. “Effects
of Recreational Use of Shorelines on Breeding Bird Populations ,”
Canada Field- Naturalist. Vol. 94 (1980), pp. 131- 138.
Burger, J. “Effects of Human Disturbance on Colonial Species,
Particularly Gulls,” Colonial Waterbirds. Vol. 4 (1981), pp. 28- 36.
Galush, J. G. “Human Disturbance on Protection Island,” Pacific
Seabird Group Bulletin. Vol. 9, No. 2 (1982), p. 77.
Drapeau, P. et al. “Effects of Human Disturbance on the Activity of
the Double- Crested Cormorant [and] on the Reproduction of the Great Blue
Heron in the Magdalu Islands, Canada,” Canada Field- Naturalist. Vol.
98 (1984), pp. 219- 222.
Burger, J. and J. Gall. “Factors Affecting Distribution of Gulls on
Two New Jersey Coastal Bays,” Environmental Conservation . Vol. 14
(1987), pp. 59- 65.
Hockey, R. A. R. “The Influence of Coastal Utilization by Man on the
Presumed Extinction of the Canarian Black Oystercatcher,” Biologial
Conservation. Vol. 39 (1987), pp. 49- 62.
Mace, B. et al. Emissions From Marine Engines With Water Contact in the
Exhaust Stream, Society of Automotive Engineers Paper 980681, 1988.
Bratton, S. Responses of Wading Birds to Natural and Unnatural Disturbances
in the Cumberland Island Sound, NPS- CPSU Technical Report No. 53, 1989.
Snow, S. A Review of Personal Watercraft and Their Potential Impact on the
Natural Resources of the Everglades National Park. National Park Service,
1988, rev. 1989.
Ballestero, Thomas P. Impact of Motor Boats and Personal Watercraft on the
Environment: Bibliography. University of New Hampshire, Aug. 1990. Goldman,
L. “Regulatory Protection of Coastal Nongame Habitats,”
Proceedings of the Coastal Nongame Workshop, Southeast Region, Gainesville,
Florida. Fish and Wildlife Service and Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission, Sept. 10- 12, 1991.
Rodgers, J. A. and H. T. Smith. “Minimum Buffer Zone Requirement to
Protect Nesting Bird Colonies from Human Disturbance,” Proceedings of
the Coastal Nongame Workshop, Southeast Region, Gainesville, Florida.
Fish and Wildlife Service and Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission,
Sept. 10- 12, 1991. Management Agreement for Submerged Lands Within
Boundaries of the Key West and Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuges.
Fish and Wildlife Service and Florida Department of Natural Resources, Sept.
1992. Kirby, J. S., C. Clee, and V. Seager. “Impact and Extent of
Recreational Disturbance to Wader Roosts on the Dee Estuary,” Colonial
Waterbirds. Vol. 16, pp. 18- 27.
Balk, L. et al. Effects of Exhaust From Two- Stroke Outboard Engines on
Fish. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, Denmark: 1994.
Lake Bronson State Park Personal Watercraft Noise Study. Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency Noise Program, 1994.
Revelt, Jean Marie. The Effects of Marine Engine Exhaust Emissions on Water
Quality: Summary of Findings of Various Research Studies, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Public Docket No. A- 92- 28, Nov. 1994.
Wagner, Kenneth, J. “Of Hammocks and Horsepower,” Lakeline
Magazine. June 1994.
Emissions of Two and Four Stroke Outboard Engines - I. Quantification of
Gasses and VOCs?, Institute for Pflanzenbiologie, Limnologische Station,
Universitat Zurich, Wat. Res. Vol. 29, No. 8 (1995). Branch, C., J. Conn,
and J. Annest. “Personal Watercraft- Related Injuries: A Growing
Public Health Concern,” Journal of the American Medical Association.
Vol. 278, No. 8 (Aug. 27, 1997), p. 664.
Giesy, John P. Testimony at Tahoe Regional Planning Hearing on Boating
Impact. Feb. 26, 1997.
Graefe, A. R. and J. S. Holland. “An Analysis of Recreational Use and
Associated Impacts at Lake Mead National Recreation Area: A Social and
Environmental Prespective.” (unpublished manuscript), 1997.
Norton, T. “Altered States: The Top 5 Engine Enhancements for Personal
Watercraft,” Watercraft World. (1997), p. 36.
Rodgers, J. A. and H. T. Smith. “Buffer Zone Distances to Protect
Foraging and Loafing Waterbirds From Human Disturbance in Florida,”
Wildlife Society Bulletin. Vol. 25 (1997), pp. 139- 145.
Barach, Paul and E. Baum. “Personal Watercraft- Related
Injuries,” Journal of the American Medical Association, Feb. 1998.
“Bombardier's Sea- Doo GTX- RFI Sound Levels,” Boating World.
June 1998. Burger, Joanna. “Effects of Motorboats and Personal
Watercraft on Flight Behavior Over A Colony of Common Terns,” Condor.
Vol. 100 (1998), pp. 528- 534. Personal Watercraft Industry Association.
National Park Service Personal Watercraft Resource Guide, 1998. Aquatic
Resources Conservation Group . Personal Watercraft Use in the San
Juan Islands, Seattle, Washington. for the Board of County Commissioners,
San Juan County, Washington: Nov. 1998.
Proposed Regulations for Gasoline Spark- Ignition Marine Engines. June 11,
1998.
Rogers, J. “Preliminary” Data on Buffer Distances to Protect
Loafing Waterbirds From Human Disturbance. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission. 1998.
National Transportation Safety Board. Safety Study: Personal Watercraft
Safety (NTSB/ SS- 98/ 01). 1998. National Park Service. Summer 1998 Visitor
Survey: Voyageurs National Park. Visitor Service Project. University of
Idaho. Martin, Laurie C. Caught in the Wake: The Environmental and Human
Health Impacts of Personal Watercraft. Issac Walton League of America, 1999.
Prodan, Pamela. “The Silent PWC Problem,” Toxic. Northern Forest
Forum, Vol. 7, No. 3 (1999).
Rogers, J. “ Preliminary” Buffer Zones to Protect Wading and
Loafing Waterbirds From Human Disturbance. Florida Game and Freshwater Fish
Commission. 1999. Sherwood, Scott D. Preliminary Results of Hydrocarbon
Testing on Canandaigua Lake. Canandaigua Lake Pure Waters, Ltd. Canandaigua,
NY.: May 21- 26, 1999.
VanMouwerik, Mark and Matt Hagemann . Water Quality Concerns Related to
Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service.
Sept. 1999.
Snowmobiles Bureau of Land
Garnet Range Winter Trails Management Plan and Environmental Management
Assessment (MT074- 05- 12). Sept. 25, 1986. Fish and Wildlife Service
“Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Final Environmental Impact
Statement for Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge.” Apr.
2000. Forest Service Final Environmental Impact Statement: Off- Road
Vehicles. Allegheny National Forest.
McCool, Stephen F., Neil Moisey, and Chris Dumas. An Analysis of Recreation
Opportunities on the Lincoln Ranger District. Research Technical Report 6,
Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research, School of Forestry,
University of Montana, Missoula, Montana.
Caribou Land and Resource Management Plan. Caribou National Forest (in
revision), 1986.
Environmental Noise Analysis: Tahoe City Snowmobile Operation. BrownBuntin
Associates for the National Forest Service, Nov. 1988.
Noise Assessment Studies: Snowmobiles Lake Tahoe Basin. Brown- Buntin
Associates for the National Forest Service, Sept. 1991.
Nelson, Charles M. An Assessment of Snowmobiling in Michigan by Snowmobilers
With Michigan Trail Permits. Michigan State University, 1998.
National Park Service Kurz, G. and D. Reinhart. Hayden Valley and Swan Lake-
Norris Bison Distribution, Movements, and Road Use Monitoring. National Park
Service (in progress).
Matschke, G. H. et al. “Chapter 7: Population Influences ,”
White- Tailed Deer: Ecology and Management. ed. L. K. Halls. Stackpole
Books, Harrisburg, PA: pp. 169- 188.
Murie, A. RC Ecology of the Coyote in Yellowstone. Fauna of the National
Parks of the United States. Fauna Series No. 4, 1940. O'Dell, Raymond T.
Report on Oversnow Vehicles. National Park Service. June 1968. Meagher, M.
M. “The Bison of Yellowstone National Park: Past and Present,”
Ph. D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkley: 1970. Meagher, M. M.
“Snow as a Factor Influencing Bison Distribution and
Numbers in Pelican Valley, Yellowstone National Park,” Proceedings,
Snow and Ice Symposium. Feb. 11- 12, pp. 63- 66. Iowa State University,
Ames: 1971.
Adams, S. E. “Effects of Lead and Hydrocarbons From Snowmobile Exhaust
on Brook Trout ( Salvalinus fontinalis),” Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society. Vol. 104, No. 2 (1974), pp. 363- 373. Meagher, M. M.
“Winter Weather as a Population- Regulating Influence on Free- Ranging
Bison in Yellowstone National Park,” Research in Parks: Transactions
of the National Park Centennial Symposium of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science, Dec. 28- 29, pp. 29- 38. Ser. No.
1 U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC: 1976. Meagher, M. M.
“Bison,” Big Game of North America: Ecology and Management. pp.
23- 133. eds. J. L. Schmidt and D. L. Gilbert, Stackpole Books, Harrisburg,
PA, 1978.
Moen, A. N. “Seasonal Changes in Heart Rates, Metabolism, and Forage
Intake of White- Tailed Deer,” Journal of Wildlife Management. Vol.
42, No. 4 (1978), pp. 715- 738.
Weaver, J. The Wolves of Yellowstone. Natural Resources Report, No. 14.
National Park Service, Washington, DC: 1978.
Shea, R. E. “Ecology of the Trumpeter Swan in Yellowstone National
Park and Vicinity,” MS Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula: 1979.
Alt, K. L. “Ecology of the Breeding Bald Eagle and Osprey in the Grand
Teton- Yellowstone National Parks Complex,” MS Thesis, University of
Montana, Missoula: 1980. Aune, K. E. “Impacts of Winter Recreationists
on Wildlife in a Portion of Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming,” MS
Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman: 1981. National Park Service .
Environmental Assessment: Snowmobile Use. Lasson Volcanic National Park.
Sept. 1981.
National Park Service. Environmental Assessment: Grand Portage National
Monument. 1982.
National Park Service. Environmental Assessment: Herbert Hoover National
Historic Site. 1982.
Whitefield, M. “Bighorn Sheep History, Distributions, and Habitat
Relationships in the Teton Mountain Range, Wyoming,” MS Thesis, Idaho
State University, Pocatello: 1983. Mattson, D. J. “Use of Ungulates by
Yellowstone Grizzly Bears ( Ursus arctos),” Biological Conservation.
Vol. 81 (1984), pp. 161- 177.
Meagher, M. M. “Yellowstone's Free- Ranging Bison,” Naturalist.
Vol. 36, No. 3 (1985), pp. 20- 27.
Judd, S. L., R. Knight, and B. Blanchard. “Denning of Grizzly Bears in
the Yellowstone National Park Area,” International Conference on Bear
Research and Management. Vol. 6, (1986), pp. 111- 117.
Swensen, J. E., K. L. Alt, and R. L. Eng. “The Ecology of the Bald
Eagle in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem,” Wildlife Monographs.
1986.
Ables, E. D. and C. D. Ables. “Behavioral Comparisons of Elk in
Yellowstone National Park,” Journal of Idaho Academy of Science. Vol.
23, No. 2 (1987), pp. 40- 48.
Machlis, Gary and D. Dolsen. Visitor Services Project: Yellowstone National
Park Visitor Study, Report 15 (Vol. 1 of 2). University of Idaho, Moscow,
April 1988. McEneaney, T. Birds of Yellowstone. Roberts Rinehart, Inc.,
1988. McEneaney, T. Yellowstone Bird Report: 1997. Yellowstone Center for
Resources. (YCR- NR- 98- 3). National Park Service, Yellowstone National
Park, 1988.
Rare, Sensitive, and Threatened Species in the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem. T. W. Clark et al. eds. Northern Rockies Conservation
Cooperative, Montana Natural Heritage Program, The Nature Conservancy, and
Mountain West Environmental Services. Northern Rockies Conservation
Cooperative, Jackson, WY.: 1989. Fish and Wildlife Service. Final
Environmental Impact Statement for a Wilderness Recommendation. Voyageurs
National Park: 1989. Meagher, M. M. “Range Expansion by Bison of
Yellowstone National Park,” Journal of Mammalogy. Vol. 70, No. 3
(1989), pp. 670- 675.
Littlejohn, Margaret, D. Dolsen, and G. Machlis . Visitor Services Project:
Yellowstone National Park Visitor Study. Report 25 University of Idaho,
Moscow: Mar. 1990.
Route, W. T. and J. P. Gogan. “Wolf Ecology Studies at Voyageurs
National Park: Summary of Winter Field Work, Winters 1987- 88 and 1988-
89.” (unpublished), 1990.
Winter Use Plan - Environmental Assessment: Yellowstone and Grand Teton
National Parks and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway. National
Park Service, Denver Service Center, Denver, CO.: 1990.
Winter Use Survey: Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and the John
D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway. National Park Service, 1990.
DelGiudice, G. D., F. J. Singer, and U. S. Seal. “Physiological
Assessment of Winter Nutritional Deprivation in Elk of Yellowstone National
Park,” Journal of Wildlife Management. Vol. 55 (1991), pp. 653- 664.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Opinion for the Voyageurs National
Park 1992 Wilderness Recommendation. Bloomington, MN.: 1992.
Fish and Wildlife Service . Biological Opinion for the Voyageurs National
Park Winter Trail Plan. Bloomington, MN.: 1992.
Harmata, A. R., and R. Oakleaf. Bald Eagles in the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem: An Ecological Study With Emphasis on the Snake River, Wyoming.
Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne: 1992.
Noise Assessment for Beaver Basin Rim Road Pictured Rocks National
Lakeshore, National Park Service, Mestre Greve Associates, Mar. 1992.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. Missoula, MT.: 1993.
Meagher, M. M. “Winter Recreation Changes on Bison Numbers and
Distribution in Yellowstone National Park,” Yellowstone National Park,
WY (unpublished report), 1993.
Coughenour, M. B. “Elk Carrying Capacity in Yellowstone's Northern Elk
Winter Range: Preliminary Modeling to Integrate Climate, Landscape, and
Nutritional Requirements,” Plants and Their Environments: Proceedings
of First Biennial Scientific Conference on the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem, pp. 97- 111. (NPS/ NRYELL/ NRTR). National Park Service,
Denver, CO.: 1994. Fish and Wildlife Service. Final Environmental Impact
Statement on the Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park
and Central Idaho. Helena, MT.: 1994.
Meagher, M. M. et al. “Bison in the Greater Yellowstone Area: Status,
Distribution, and Management,” National Brucellosis Symposium
Proceedings. pp. 96- 105, 1994.
Bureau of Reclamation. Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan. Montana Bald
Eagle Working Group, Billings: 1994.
The Strategy Group. Recreational User Survey Executive Summary. Idaho
Department of Parks and Recreation, 1994.
Sylvester, James and M. Nesary. Snowmobiling in Montana: An Update. The
University of Montana Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University
of Montana, Missoula: 1994.
National Park Service. Ambient Air Quality Study Results, Winter 1995 -
Summary, West Entrance Station. Yellowstone National Park, 1995. Bowles, A.
E. “Chapter 8: Responses of Wildlife to Noise,” pp. 109- 156 in
R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and Recreationalists:
Coexistence Through Management and Research. Island Press. Washington, DC.:
1995.
National Park Service. Grand Teton National Park Resource Management Plan.
Grand Teton NationaI Park, 1995.
Maret, T. R. Water Quality Assessment of the Upper Snake River Basin, Idaho
and Western Wyoming- Summary of Aquatic Biological Data for Surface Water
Through 1992. U. S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report
95- 4006, Boise, ID.: 1995.
Taylor, David, R. Fletcher, and J. Skidgel. 1993- 95 Wyoming Snowmobile
Assessment. Final Report to Wyoming Department of Commerce, Division of
State Parks and Historic Sites. Department of Agricultural Economics,
University of Wyoming, Laramie: 1995.
Tyers, D. B. and L. Irby. “Shiras Moose Winter Habitat Use in the
Upper Yellowstone River Valley Prior to and After the 1988 Fires,”
Alces. Vol. 31 (1995), National Park Service, pp. 35- 43. Bowley and
Associates, Robert Peccia and Associates. 1996 Noise Monitoring Study: Grand
Teton National Park and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway.
National Park Service. “Carbon Monoxide Monitoring, West Entrance and
West Entrance Road, Winter 1996.” Yellowstone National Park.
Freimund, Wayne A . Examining Indicators of Quality Winter Use in
Yellowstone National Park. The University of Montana School of Forestry,
Missoula: Mar. 18, 1996.
Wyoming Game and Fish Department . Greater Yellowstone Bald Eagle Management
Plan: 1995 Update. Greater Yellowstone Bald Eagle Working Group, Lander:
1996.
Littlejohn, Margaret. Visitor Services Project: Grand Teton National Park
Visitor Study, Report 74. University of Idaho, Moscow: Feb. 1996.
Littlejohn, Margaret . Visitor Services Project: Yellowstone National Park
Visitor Study, Report 75. University of Idaho, Moscow: Feb. 1996.
Parrish, Josie, et. al. Idaho Winter Sports and Recreation Snowmobiling,
1994- 1995. Report 813, Idaho Forest Wildlife and Range Experiment Station,
University of Idaho, Moscow: 1996.
Morey and Associates, Inc. and the University of Wyoming, College of
Business, Department of Economics and Finance. Report on the Economic Impact
of the Yellowstone National Park Closure on Teton and Park Counties, 1995-
1996. Prepared for Wyoming's Department of Commerce, Division of Tourism,
May 31, 1996. National Park Service. Trip Fact Sheet: Winter 1994, Greater
Yellowstone Area. Yellowstone Planning Office, 1996.
National Park Service. Trip Fact Sheet: Winter 1995, Greater Yellowstone
Area. Yellowstone Planning Office, 1996.
Borrie, William and W. Friemund. Social Conditions for Winter Use in
Yellowstone National Park: Final Report on Phase Two. (contract CA 1268- 0-
0623) University of Montana School of Forestry, Missoula: Dec. 31, 1997.
National Park Service, Environmental Assessment: Temporary Closure of a
Winter Road. Yellowstone National Park, WY: 1997.
Green, G. I., D. J. Mattson, and J. M. Peek. “Spring Feeding on
Ungulate Carcasses by Grizzly Bears in Yellowstone National Park,”
Journal of Wildlife Management. Vol. 61 (1997), pp. 1040- 1055.
Ingersoll, G., et al. “Snowpack Chemistry as an Indicator of Pollutant
Emission Levels From Motorized Winter Vehicles in Yellowstone National
Park,” presented at the 65th Annual Western Snow Conference, Banff,
Canada, May 4- 8, 1997, pp. 103- 113. May, Juliet, et al. An Estimation of
Benefits Associated With the Wyoming State Snowmobile Trails Program.
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Wyoming, Laramie: 1997.
May, Juliet, et al. The Economic Benefits of Snowmobiling to Wyoming
Residents. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Wyoming,
Laramie: 1997.
May, Juliet. Measuring Consumer Surplus of Wyoming Snowmobilers Using the
Travel Cost Method. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of
Wyoming, Laramie: 1997.
Neher, Chris, H. Robison, and J. Duffield. The Economic Impacts of the 1995-
96 Shutdown of the National Park System Micro Study. Montana State
University, Yellowstone National Park, May 15, 1997. Radtke, T. Industrial
Hygiene Consultation Report. (Report No. 970101).
Office of Managing Risk and Public Safety, Department of Interior, Lakewood,
CO.: 1997.
Snook, L. M. and W. T. Davis. “An Investigation of Driver Exposure to
Carbon Monoxide While Travelling in the Wake of a Snowmobile,” (Paper
97- RP143. 02). Presented at the Air and Waste Management Association's 90th
Annual Meeting and Exhibition, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, June 8- 13, 1997.
Morey and Associates, Inc. Wyoming Visitor Survey: Winter 1997. Prepared for
Wyoming's Department of Commerce, Division of Tourism. May 1997. Bishop, G.
A. and D. H. Stedman. 1998 Preliminary Snowmobile Emission Survey in
Yellowstone National Park: Final Report. Prepared for the National Park
Service. University of Denver. Denver, CO.: 1998.
Bjornlie, D. J. and R. A. Garrot. The Effect of Groomed Roads and
Distribution of Bison in Yellowstone National Park. Annual Report 1998,
Montana State University, Bozeman: 1998.
National Park Service. “Environmental Impact Statement for the
Interagency Bison Management Plan for the State of Montana and Yellowstone
National Park,” Denver Service Center, Denver, CO.: 1998.
Gunther, K. A., J. Biel, and H. L. Robison. “Factors Influencing the
Frequency of Road Killed Wildlife in Yellowstone National Park,” in F.
T. Meyers et al. eds. Proceedings of the International Conference on
Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. (FL- ER- 69S58). pp. 32- 42, 1998.
Kurz, G. L. “ 1997- 1998 Hayden Valley Bison Monitoring Project
Progress Report. (unpublished), Yellowstone National Park, WY.: 1998.
Meagher, M. M. “Recent Changes in Yellowstone Bison Numbers and
Distribution,” International Symposium on Bison Ecology and Management
in North America. pp. 107- 112. Bozeman, MT.: 1998.
Morey and Associates, Inc. Public Opinion Survey Report - September 1998, in
Teton County, Wyoming. Oct. 2, 1998. Smith, D. W. Yellowstone Wolf Project:
1997 Annual Report. (YCR- NR- 98- 2.) Yellowstone National Park, WY.: 1998.
Summary of Socio- Economic Conditions: Teton County, Wyoming. Teton County,
Sept. 1998.
White, J. J. and J. N. Carroll. Emissions From Snowmobile Engines Using Bio-
Based Fuels and Lubricants. Southwest Research Institute (Report No. SwRI
7383), for the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 1998.
Wright, C. W, and J. J. White. “Development and Validation of a
Snowmobile Engine Emission Test Procedure.” SAE Technical Paper
(Series 982017), International Off- Highway and Powerplant Conference and
Exposition. Sept. 14- 16, 1998. Milwaukee, WI.
National Park Service. Yellowstone National Park Resource Management Plan.
Yellowstone National Park, WY.: 1998. Duffield, J. W. and C. J. Neher.
“Spring 1999 Nationwide Telephone Survey.” (in progress).
Missoula, MT.
Bioeconomics, Inc. Winter 1998- 1999 Visitor Use Survey: Yellowstone and
Grand Teton National Parks and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial
Parkway. National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, 1999. Borrie, W.,
et al. Winter Visit and Visitor Characteristics of Yellowstone National
Park: Final Report 1999. School of Forestry, University of Montana,
Missoula, 1999. Carroll, J. N. and J. J. White. Characterization of
Snowmobile Particulate
Emissions: Final Letter Report. Southwest Research Institute (Report No.
SwRI 08- 2457), for the Yellowstone Park Foundation, Inc., 1999.
Consolo Murphy, S. L. and M. Meagher. “The Status of Wolverine, Lynx,
and Fisher in Yellowstone National Park.” Proceedings of the Third
Biennial Science Conference on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem,
Yellowstone National Park. Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative,
Jackson, WY.: 1999.
Davenport, Mae. Yellowstone National Park Winter Visitor Stories: An
Exploration of the Nature of Recreation Experiences and Visitor Perceptions
of Management Change. M. S. thesis, School of Forestry, University of
Montana, Missoula, 1999.
Duffield, J. W. and C. J. Neher. “Winter 1998- 99 Visitor Survey:
Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and the Greater Yellowstone Area:
Analysis and Results.” (draft) Bioeconomics, Inc., Missoula, MT.
Oliff, Tom, K. Legg, and B. Kaeding, eds. Effects of Winter Recreation on
Wildlife of the Greater Yellowstone Area: A Literature Review and
Assessment. National Park Service, Oct. 1999. Ingersoll, G. Effects of
Snowmobile Use on Snowpack Chemistry in
Yellowstone National Park, 1998. Water Resources Investigations Report 99-
4148. U. S. Geological Survey, 1999.
Kurz, G., et al., “1998- 99 Winter Bison Monitoring Progress
Report.” (unpublished) National Park Service, Yellowstone National
Park, WY.: 1999. Morris, J. A., G. A. Bishop, and D. H. Stedman.
“Real- Time Remote Sensing of Snowmobile Emissions at Yellowstone
National Park: An Oxygenated Fuel Study, 1999.” Prepared for the
Western Regional Biomass Energy Program, Lincoln, NE. University of Denver,
Aug. 1999.
Taylor, David. Economic Importance of the Winter Season to Park County,
Wyoming. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Wyoming,
Laramie, May 1999.
Winter Use Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Yellowstone and
Grand Teton National Parks and John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway.
National Park Service Denver Service Center, Denver, CO: 1999
“Environmental Impact Statement for the Winter Use Plan.”
Yellowstone National Park, National Park Service, July 1999. National Park
Service. Air Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage in National Parks.
Air Resources Division, Denver, CO.: 2000.
Alger, Russ. “Mogul Generation Study.” Keweenaw Research Center.
Michigan Technological University, (in progress). Bjornlie, D. and R.
Garrott. “The Effect of Groomed Roads on Behavior and
Distribution of Bison in Yellowstone National Park.” Montana State
University, Bozeman, (in progress).
Bowlby and Associates. “Initial Evaluations of Natural and
RecreationProduced Sounds of the National Parks in Winter.” National
Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, (in progress).
Montana Department of Environmental Quality. “Continuous Carbon
Monoxide Monitoring at West Entrance, Yellowstone National Park,”
(ongoing).
Duffield, J. W., Patterson, D. and C. J. Neher. “Summer 1999 Visitor
Survey Yellowstone National Park,” Bioeconomics, Inc., Missoula,
Montana (in progress).
“Evaluating Employee Exposure to Hazardous Conditions.” National
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Sound Conditions, Harris,
Miller, Miller, and Hansen. National Park Service, Yellowstone National
Park, initiated Feb. 2000. Garrott, R., A. Hardy, and S. Creek.
“Assessing Impacts of Winter Recreation on Wildlife.” Montana
State University, Bozeman, (in progress).
Garrott, R., S. Hess, and L. Eberhardt. “Development of Aerial Survey
Methodology for Bison Population Estimation in Yellowstone National
Park.” Montana State University, Bozeman, (in progress).
Gogan, P. and E. Olexa. “Seasonal Movements and Habitat Selection by
Bison in Yellowstone National Park.” Montana State University,
Bozeman, in progress. Gogan, P., et al., “Population Characteristics
of Yellowstone National Park Bison.” Montana State University,
Bozeman, (in progress).
Hansen, K., P. Farnes, and C. Heydon. “Snow Measurements and Modeling
in Relation to Animal Movement in Yellowstone National Park.” Montana
State University, Bozeman, (in progress).
Irby, L. and T. Olenicki. “Determining Forage Availability and Habitat
Use Patterns for Bison in the Hayden Valley of Yellowstone National
Park.” Montana State University, Bozeman, (in progress).
Kado, N. Y., P. A. Kuzmichy, and R. A. Okamoto. “Measurement of Toxic
Air Pollutants Emitted from Snowmobiles at Yellowstone National Park.”
Department of Environmental Toxicology, University of California, Davis, (in
progress).
Meagher, M. and M. Taper. “Statistical Analysis and Synthesis of 30
Years of Bison Data.” Montana State University, Bozeman, (in
progress).
Tyler, B. and R. Peterson. “Field Studies of Aerosol Formation and
Biodegradation of Snowmobile Fuels, Lubricants, and Emissions in the
Yellowstone Region.” Montana State University, Bozeman, (in progress).
Comments From the Department of the
Appendi x V I Interior
See comment 1. See comment 2.
See comment 3.
See comment 4.
GAO Comments The following are GAO's comments on the Department of the
Interior's letter dated August 23, 2000. While the Department generally
agreed with the report's recommendations, agencies within the Department
raised the following concerns about the discussion of personal watercraft
restrictions and the presentation of questionnaire data.
1. The Bureau of Land Management was concerned that the report's discussion
of the authority of the agency or other entities to control or restrict use
of personal watercraft was confusing. We acknowledge that the
issue of authority to control or restrict the use of personal watercraft
within federal units is complex and we revised the report to help clarify
the issue. The Bureau was also concerned that our survey questions on this
issue were unclear which may result in data that do not accurately reflect
their field office managers' knowledge concerning such authorities. While
we believe our survey questions were straightforward and that our report
accurately presents the responses of the Bureau's field managers, our data
show that the issue of whether an agency has the authority to control or
restrict use remains outstanding for some field managers. Specifically, in
response to a question concerning what changes, if any, were needed to
regulations or restrictions to improve management of personal watercraft
use, several respondents, including Bureau of Land Management field
managers, reported the need for clarification or changes in existing
regulations to help them better understand their authority. For example, a
respondent from one Bureau Field Office stated, “Our challenge is the
murky legal issues involving navigability and the role of the state to
regulate and/ or enforce (personal watercraft use) on navigable rivers.
Ideally, state legislation would deal with that issue. However, there has
been little consensus developed that it is a problem that needs to be
addressed.” 2. The Bureau of Land Management expressed concern over
what appeared to be inconsistent numbers of responses on some of the
questions. As occurs with most surveys, some survey respondents did not
answer every
question in the survey. The tables in Appendix II summarize responses where
a “Yes”, “No”, or other available answer was
selected before continuing on to the next question, and do not include
“nonresponses.” For example, while 77 Bureau respondents
provided a “Yes” answer on question 1, four of those respondents
did not answer question 2 and simply continued on to the next question.
Similarly, not all respondents who
answered question 6 provided an answer to question 5 before moving forward
in the survey.
3. The Fish and Wildlife Service commented that the report may give the
impression that agencies are reluctant to fulfill their responsibilities to
monitor the impact of snowmobile or personal watercraft use. We recognize
that all four of the agencies have a variety of legislative or other
program requirements, and that some require more attention than others. We
believe the report fairly and accurately captures the reasons why monitoring
is not occurring at many units managed by the agencies under review.
4. We agree with the Fish and Wildlife Service's conclusion that some
percentage of their units that can support the use of recreational vehicles
is in compliance with the executive orders. We also agree that some of the
Service's units have already prohibited use of these vehicles out of concern
for the issues raised by the executive orders. However, we do not agree that
only a few of the Service's units are out of compliance with the executive
orders. Specifically, the Service believes that 220 of its 419 responding
units should not be considered out of compliance because these units stated
that
they have total prohibitions on the use of a recreation vehicle. The Service
did not recognize that some of these units may have totally prohibited the
use of one vehicle but still allowed the use of the other. The Service also
contends that all 109 of its units that responded they lack authority to
control the use of recreational vehicles should not be considered out of
compliance. However, only a small percentage of these units reported lacking
authority over both personal watercraft and snowmobiles and in all areas of
their units. As a result, some of these units have authority over at least
one of these vehicles and in at least some portion of their unit. Finally,
as stated in our report, of those units that could be described as in
compliance with the executive orders, because they collected some
information about impacts, about half of these units stated that the
information they collected was inadequate for determining how to manage the
use of these vehicles.
Comments From the Department of
Appendi x V Agriculture's Forest Service
Now on p. 5. Now on pp. 5, 17, and 18. Now on p. 8. Now on p. 12. Now on pp.
14 and 15. Now on p. 15. Now on p. 16. Now on p. 19.
Now on pp. 20 and 21.
Now on p. 21. Now on p. 22. Now on p. 23. Now on p. 24. Now on p. 24.
Now on pp. 59 and 64.
Appendi x VI
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Barry T. Hill (202) 512-
8021 Jim Wells, Jr. (202) 512- 3841 Acknowledgments In addition to those
named above, Robert Arthur, Brian Estes, William
Garber, Brent Hutchison, Luann Moy, Dena Owens, Stephen Palincsar, Ned
Smith, Bill Wolter, and Jim Yeager made key contributions to this report.
(141345) Lett er
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional
copies of reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to
the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are
accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single
address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders by mail: U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington,
DC 20013
Orders by visiting: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U. S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC
Orders by phone: (202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
will provide information on how to obtain these lists.
Orders by Internet: For information on how to access GAO reports on the
Internet, send an e- mail message with “info” in the body to:
info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web home page at: http:// www.
gao. gov
To Report Fraud,
Contact one:
Waste, or Abuse in Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm
Federal Programs
e- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system)
GAO United States General Accounting Office
Page 1 GAO/ RCEC- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Contents
Page 2 GAO/ RCEC- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Page 3 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands United States General Accounting
Office
Washington, D. C. 20548 Page 3 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
B- 284390 Page 4 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
B- 284390 Page 5 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
B- 284390 Page 6 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
B- 284390 Page 7 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
B- 284390 Page 8 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
B- 284390 Page 9 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
B- 284390 Page 10 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
B- 284390 Page 11 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
B- 284390 Page 12 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
B- 284390 Page 13 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
B- 284390 Page 14 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
B- 284390 Page 15 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
B- 284390 Page 16 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
B- 284390 Page 17 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
B- 284390 Page 18 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
B- 284390 Page 19 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
B- 284390 Page 20 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
B- 284390 Page 21 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
B- 284390 Page 22 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
B- 284390 Page 23 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
B- 284390 Page 24 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
B- 284390 Page 25 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
B- 284390 Page 26 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
B- 284390 Page 27 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
B- 284390 Page 28 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
B- 284390 Page 29 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
B- 284390 Page 30 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Page 31 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Page 32 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix I
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 33 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 34 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Page 35 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix II
Appendix II Survey Questions and Response
Page 36 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix II Survey Questions and Response
Page 37 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix II Survey Questions and Response
Page 38 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix II Survey Questions and Response
Page 39 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix II Survey Questions and Response
Page 40 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix II Survey Questions and Response
Page 41 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix II Survey Questions and Response
Page 42 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix II Survey Questions and Response
Page 43 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix II Survey Questions and Response
Page 44 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix II Survey Questions and Response
Page 45 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix II Survey Questions and Response
Page 46 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix II Survey Questions and Response
Page 47 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix II Survey Questions and Response
Page 48 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix II Survey Questions and Response
Page 49 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix II Survey Questions and Response
Page 50 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix II Survey Questions and Response
Page 51 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix II Survey Questions and Response
Page 52 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix II Survey Questions and Response
Page 53 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix II Survey Questions and Response
Page 54 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix II Survey Questions and Response
Page 55 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix II Survey Questions and Response
Page 56 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix II Survey Questions and Response
Page 57 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix II Survey Questions and Response
Page 58 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Page 59 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix III
Appendix III Studies and Documents Identified by Federal Units About the
Impacts of Personal Watercraft and Snowmobiles
Page 60 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix III Studies and Documents Identified by Federal Units About the
Impacts of Personal Watercraft and Snowmobiles
Page 61 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix III Studies and Documents Identified by Federal Units About the
Impacts of Personal Watercraft and Snowmobiles
Page 62 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix III Studies and Documents Identified by Federal Units About the
Impacts of Personal Watercraft and Snowmobiles
Page 63 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix III Studies and Documents Identified by Federal Units About the
Impacts of Personal Watercraft and Snowmobiles
Page 64 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix III Studies and Documents Identified by Federal Units About the
Impacts of Personal Watercraft and Snowmobiles
Page 65 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix III Studies and Documents Identified by Federal Units About the
Impacts of Personal Watercraft and Snowmobiles
Page 66 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix III Studies and Documents Identified by Federal Units About the
Impacts of Personal Watercraft and Snowmobiles
Page 67 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix III Studies and Documents Identified by Federal Units About the
Impacts of Personal Watercraft and Snowmobiles
Page 68 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix III Studies and Documents Identified by Federal Units About the
Impacts of Personal Watercraft and Snowmobiles
Page 69 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix III Studies and Documents Identified by Federal Units About the
Impacts of Personal Watercraft and Snowmobiles
Page 70 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix III Studies and Documents Identified by Federal Units About the
Impacts of Personal Watercraft and Snowmobiles
Page 71 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix III Studies and Documents Identified by Federal Units About the
Impacts of Personal Watercraft and Snowmobiles
Page 72 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix III Studies and Documents Identified by Federal Units About the
Impacts of Personal Watercraft and Snowmobiles
Page 73 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix III Studies and Documents Identified by Federal Units About the
Impacts of Personal Watercraft and Snowmobiles
Page 74 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix III Studies and Documents Identified by Federal Units About the
Impacts of Personal Watercraft and Snowmobiles
Page 75 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Page 76 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix IV
Appendix IV Comments From the Department of the Interior
Page 77 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix IV Comments From the Department of the Interior
Page 78 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix IV Comments From the Department of the Interior
Page 79 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix IV Comments From the Department of the Interior
Page 80 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix IV Comments From the Department of the Interior
Page 81 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Page 82 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix V
Appendix V Comments From the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service
Page 83 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix V Comments From the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service
Page 84 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Page 85 GAO/ RCED- 00- 243 Federal Lands
Appendix VI
United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001
Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested Bulk Rate
Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GI00
*** End of document. ***