GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

September 2000 FEDERAL LANDS

Agencies Need to 

Assess the Impact of 

Personal Watercraft 

and Snowmobile Use

GAO/RCED-00-243

Page 1 GAO/RCEC-00-243 Federal Lands

Contents

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
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

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-284390 Letr

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. 
B-284390

Page 4 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

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.
B-284390

Page 5 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

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.
B-284390

Page 6 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

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.) 
B-284390

Page 7 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

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.)
B-284390

Page 8 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

Table 1: Responsibilities of Four Federal Land Management Agencies

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 

Agency

Bureau of Land 

Management

Fish and Wildlife 

Service National Park Service Forest Service

Number of acres 

managed

264 million 93 million 80 million 192 million

Management 

responsibilities

Manage multiple usesa

of federal lands in 11 

western states and 

Alaska, including 

grasslands, forests, 

deserts, high mountains, 

and arctic tundra.

Preserve and enhance 

fish, wildlife, plants, and 

their habitats, primarily in 

national wildlife refuges.

Preserve and protect 

national parks, recreation 

areas, battlefields, 

historic sites, 

monuments, and 

preserves.

Manage multiple usesa of 

the national forests and 

grasslands.

2

Boating Statistics—1997, U.S. Coast Guard (June 1999).

3

Hazard Sketch: Snowmobiles, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (Nov. 1997).
B-284390

Page 9 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

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 

Federal Units Report 

Recreational Use of 

Personal Watercraft or 

Snowmobiles

Of the 1,018 federal units that responded to our survey, 475 units, or about 

47 percent, reported the recreational use of personal watercraft, 

snowmobiles, or both during fiscal year 1999. The extent to which units 

reported this use varied considerably from agency to agency and from unit 

to unit. More units reported the use of personal watercraft than of 

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 

Agency and Type of Vehicle

Forest Service units reported the greatest use of personal watercraft and 

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 
B-284390

Page 10 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

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 

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. 

Types of vehicle and number of units reporting usea

Agency

Units

responding to

survey

Personal

watercraft only

Snowmobiles

only

Both

personal

watercraft and

snowmobiles Total

Percentage of

total units

reporting usea

Bureau of Land 

Management

103 23 21 35 79 77

Fish and Wildlife 

Service

419 93 49 16 158 38

National Park 

Serviceb

328 52 37 12 101 31

Forest Service 168 28 26 83 137 82

Total 1,018 196 133 146 475 47
B-284390

Page 11 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

Figure 3: Distribution of Use or Capacity Among the 1,018 Federal Units

Users Tend to Be a Small 

Percentage of Total Visitors

For those federal units that reported information on the amount of 

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 

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) 

•24%

No capacity for personal watercraft 

or snowmobile use (241 units) 
B-284390

Page 12 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

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 

Recreational Use Are 

Affected by Laws, 

Agency Regulations 

and Policies, and the 

Authority Regulating 

the Land

Allowing the recreational use of personal watercraft or snowmobiles in a 

particular federal unit depends on several factors, including specific 

provisions of various laws, and the regulations and policies of the agency 

managing the land. In certain cases, the 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. 

Provisions in Federal Law 

Specifically Authorize Use 

in Some Areas and Prohibit 

Use in Others

Through various provisions in laws, the Congress has specifically 

authorized or prohibited the operation of personal watercraft and/or 

snowmobiles in some individual federal units or special areas within units. 

For example:

• In designating the 23,100-acre Allegheny National Recreation Area 

within the Allegheny National Forest in northwestern Pennsylvania in 
B-284390

Page 13 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

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 

Policies for Determining 

Use Vary

When no laws specifically authorize or prohibit the use of personal 

watercraft and snowmobiles, the federal agencies determine whether the 

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 
B-284390

Page 14 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

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 
B-284390

Page 15 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

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 

Snowmobile Use Is 

Prohibited in a Significant 

Number of Federal Units

As a result of either provisions in law or specific use determinations, 

survey respondents reported that 367 of the 777 units, or 47 percent, with 

capacity for use have prohibited recreational use of personal watercraft, or 

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. 
B-284390

Page 16 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

Table 3: Total Prohibitions of Use by Agency and Vehicle Type

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 

Report They Lack Clear 

Authority to Control Some 

Use

According to our survey results, in many cases entities other than the 

federal land management agencies determine whether personal watercraft 

or snowmobiles can be used in federal units. Units reported that the federal 

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

Type of vehicle and number of units reporting total prohibitions

Agency

Units with

capacity

Personal

watercraft

only

Snowmobiles

only

Both

personal watercraft

and snowmobiles Total

Percentage of units

with capacity

reporting total

prohibitionsa

Bureau of Land 

Management

90 2 0 0 2 2

Fish and Wildlife 

Service

350 127 37 56 220 63

National Park 

Service

182 66 33 13 112 62

Forest Service 155 28 4 1 33 21

Total 777 223 74 70 367 47

Units reporting lack of authority

Agency

Units with

use

Personal

watercraft

only

Snowmobiles

only

Both

personal watercraft

and snowmobiles Total

Percentage of

units with use

reporting lack of

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
B-284390

Page 17 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

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 

Restricted, but 

Enforcement Is 

Limited

In about one-half of the 475 federal units where the recreational use of 

personal watercraft or snowmobiles occurred, the operation of these 

vehicles is restricted in some manner. These restrictions include, among 

other things, speed limits, minimum age requirements for operation, and 

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).
B-284390

Page 18 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

Restrictions Come From 

Federal, State, and Local 

Entities 

A number of units reported operating restrictions for both types of 

vehicles. In units where personal watercraft use occurred, about one-half 

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 
B-284390

Page 19 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

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 

Enforce Restrictions, but 

Shortage of Enforcement 

Personnel Exists

Enforcement of operating restrictions varies depending on the type of 

jurisdiction that exists within the federal unit. In many cases, enforcement 

is a responsibility shared among the federal units, states, and in some 

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. 
B-284390

Page 20 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

Agencies Have Done 

Little to Assess the 

Impacts of 

Recreational Use on 

Their Units’ Resources

About 60 percent of the units that have recreational use of personal 

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 

percent of the units whose respondents said such information has been 

collected, about half reported the information was less than adequate to 

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 

Assess the Impacts of 

Personal Watercraft and 

Snowmobile Use 

In general, the federal land management agencies are responsible for 

managing federal lands and waters so that allowed activities do not 

adversely affect natural resources and the environment. Concerning the 

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 
B-284390

Page 21 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

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 

Assessment of the Impacts 

of Personal Watercraft and 

Snowmobile Use

Nearly 60 percent (or 264 of 475) of the units that had personal watercraft 

and/or snowmobile use reported that they had collected no information on 

the impacts of this use on the unit’s resources and environment. This lack 

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. 
B-284390

Page 22 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

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 

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 information5

 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. 

Units reporting some information collected 

Agency Units with use

Studies at the unit

or elsewhere

Personal

observations only Total

Percentage

of units reporting some

information collected

Bureau of Land 

Management

79 4 20 24 30

Fish and Wildlife 

Service

158 9 43 52 33

National Park Service 101 25 30 55 54

Forest Service 137 26 54 80 58

Total 475 64 147 211 44

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.
B-284390

Page 23 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

Agencies Have Not Made 

Collecting Impact 

Information a Priority

Officials from all four land management agencies said they have not 

conducted more studies or monitored the use of these vehicles largely 

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 
B-284390

Page 24 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

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 

Has Identified Adverse 

Effects 

When federal land management agencies and others have completed 

studies on the impact of personal watercraft and snowmobile use, the 

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 
B-284390

Page 25 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

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).
B-284390

Page 26 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

• 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 stateregistered 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 
B-284390

Page 27 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

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 

Our Evaluation

We provided copies of a draft of this report to the Department of the 

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.
B-284390

Page 28 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

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 
B-284390

Page 29 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

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.
B-284390

Page 30 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

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
Page 31 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands
Page 32 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

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 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 33 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

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.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 34 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

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

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.

Agency Units Responses received Percentage

Bureau of Land 

Management

120 103 85.8

Fish and Wildlife 

Service

523 419 80.1

National Park 

Service

372 328 88.2

Forest Service 176 168 95.4

Total 1,191 1,018 85.5
Page 35 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

Appendix II

Survey Questions and Response ApendxiI
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

Studies and Documents Identified by Federal 

Units About the Impacts of Personal 

Watercraft and Snowmobiles ApendxiI

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.
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

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.
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

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. 
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

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.
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

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). 
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

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 

Management

Garnet Range Winter Trails Management Plan and Environmental 

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.
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

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. 
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

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.
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

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.
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

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.
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

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.
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

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.
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

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.
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

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. 
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

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. 
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

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). 
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

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).
Page 76 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

Appendix IV

Comments From the Department of the 

Interior ApendxiIV
Appendix IV

Comments From the Department of the 

Interior

Page 77 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

See comment 1.

See comment 2.
Appendix IV

Comments From the Department of the 

Interior

Page 78 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

See comment 3.
Appendix IV

Comments From the Department of the 

Interior

Page 79 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

See comment 4.
Appendix IV

Comments From the Department of the 

Interior

Page 80 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

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. 
Appendix IV

Comments From the Department of the 

Interior

Page 81 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

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. 
Page 82 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

Appendix V

Comments From the Department of 

Agriculture’s Forest Service ApendxiV
Appendix V

Comments From the Department of 

Agriculture’s Forest Service

Page 83 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

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.
Appendix V

Comments From the Department of 

Agriculture’s Forest Service

Page 84 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

Now on p. 21.

Now on p. 23.

Now on p. 24.

Now on p. 24.

Now on pp. 59 and 64.

Now on p. 22.
Page 85 GAO/RCED-00-243 Federal Lands

Appendix VI

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiVI

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) Letr
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, 

Waste, or Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

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