APPENDIX A

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH THE

COOPERATING AGENCIES

A-1

INTRODUCTION

By special agreement as provided under 40 CFR §1501.6 and §1508.5, the National Park Service

(NPS), the lead agency in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), has collaborated with nine

cooperating agencies in the EIS process: the U.S. Forest Service; the States of Idaho, Montana,

and Wyoming; and the Counties of Gallatin and Park, Montana, Park and Teton, Wyoming, and

Fremont, Idaho. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) define a cooperating agency as any agency that has

jurisdiction by law or, in this case, special expertise for proposals covered by NEPA. See

Chapter I for further discussion of cooperating agency involvement and their identified areas of

expertise. The Memorandums of Agreement for all agencies were published in the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Volume II, Appendix I. The following timetable

illustrates the extent to which the NPS interacted with cooperating agencies subsequent to The

Fund for Animals lawsuit.

Table 1. Timetable of events

Date Event/Action

12/1997-1/1998 The NPS grants cooperating agency status to three adjoining states, five adjoining

counties and USFS.†

2/1998 Cooperators asked to submit comments on whether to produce a General

Management Plan or a Winter Use Plan.

2/13/1998 First Winter Use Cooperators Meeting held in Bozeman (News Release).

4/14/1998 Federal Register "Notice of Intent" on Winter Use Plans/EIS published (News release

4/15/1998).

4/30/1998 Conference call with cooperators.

5/22/1998 Meeting with all cooperators in Jackson, Wyoming.

6/1/1998 Cooperators consulted on dates and locations for scoping meetings, invited to attend.

6/14-7/16/1998 Open house scoping meetings held at 16 locations across country (News Releases 6/4,

6/15 and 7/1/1999).

7/18/1998 Scoping process ends on Winter Use Plans/EIS.

7/31/1999 Cooperators asked to review the draft study design, draft sample plan and draft

questionnaire for economic study. At request of the State agencies, The NPS

contracts with three experts designated by the states to provide peer review of the

study and draft report.

8/5/1998 Conference calls with all cooperators.

8/12/1998 Hard copies of all scoping comments provided to cooperators upon their request.

8/26-27/1998 Meeting with cooperators in Cody, Wyoming.

9/3/1998 Copies of YNP† Winter Survey (1997-1998) and report Social Conditions of Winter

Use in YNP (1997) sent to cooperators.

9/11/1998 Draft scoping content summary analysis and copies of documents, which define the

NPS mission and goals sent to cooperators.

9/29/1998 Preliminary Bibliography for Winter Use Research sent to cooperators.

10/1/1998 Final summary of issues identified during scoping sent to cooperators.

10/14-16/1998 Alternatives Concept Workshop with cooperators held in Idaho Falls.

Fall 1998 Deputy Regional Director Mike Snyder agrees to Paul Kruse request to allow
A-2

Date Event/Action

cooperators 5 working days response time on any request for input from the NPS.

11/20/1998 Four draft preliminary winter use alternatives released to cooperators for review and

input.

12/7/1998 Comments due from cooperators on draft preliminary winter use alternatives.

12/18/1998 Clifford Hawkes letter to cooperators setting tentative 1/25/1999 date for release of

draft alternatives to cooperators.

1/27/1999 Regional Director John Cook letter to cooperators regarding delay in release of draft

winter use alternatives.

2/26/1999 Regional Director John Cook letter to cooperators regarding continued delay in

release of draft winter use alternatives.

3/5/1999 Department of Justice (DOJ) request extension of deadlines for Draft Plans/EIS, Final

Plans/EIS and ROD.

3/23/1999 The Fund for Animals agrees to extension of deadlines, but with stipulations the NPS

finds unacceptable.

4/2/1999 Regional Director John Cook letter to the NPS Director Stanton requesting release of

draft alternatives to cooperators.

4/19/1999 Draft Winter Use alternatives released to cooperators for review and input.

5/19/1999 Revised Winter Use Plans/EIS timeline sent to cooperators.

5/24/1999 Comments due from cooperators on draft winter use alternatives.

6/16/1999 Regional Director John Cook response letters to cooperators regarding comments on

draft alternatives.

6/24/1999 Preliminary Draft Winter Use Plans/EIS released to cooperators for review and

comment.

6/28/1999 Paul Kruse response to YNP Superintendent Finley’s 5/18 response to Senators

Burns, Enzi, Craig, & Crapo.

7/1/1999 Comments due from the NPS and cooperators on preliminary Draft Winter Use

Plans/EIS.

7/7/1999 YNP Superintendent Finley requests 45-day extension for release of Draft Winter Use

Plans/EIS.

7/28/1999 Letter from Superintendent Finley to Paul Kruse responding to Kruse June 28 letter:

define CAs roles, clarify EIS schedule and timeframes, and clarify sharing of socioeconomic information.

7/30/1999 Draft Winter Use Plans/EIS posted to Internet for public review and comment.

8/10/1999 Letter from Wyoming Governor Geringer to the NPS Intermountain Regional

Director John Cook requesting 30-day extension of comment period until Nov. 15.

8/17/1999 Letter to Wyoming Governor Geringer from the NPS Intermountain Regional

Director John Cook responding to August 10 letter: granting 30-day extension of

comment period.

8/23/1999 CAs provided with raw data from "Winter 1998-99 Visitor Survey Yellowstone,

GTNP†, and the GYA†"

8/25/1999 Printed copies of Draft Winter Use Plans/EIS available.

9/28/1999 Close of public review and comment period on Draft Winter Use Plans/EIS.

9/29/1999 Letter from Wyoming County Commissioners Association to Superintendent Finley

about resolution passed by Association in support of Revised Alternative E.
A-3

Date Event/Action

10/12/1999 Fax to CAs regarding extension of comment period on DEIS to 12/01/1999 and letter

to CAs to re-confirm meeting times/locations for public hearings on EIS/Plans.

10/18/1999 "Draft Report Winter 1998-99 Visitor Survey Yellowstone, GTNP, and the GYA:

Analysis and Results" released to CAs, with request for comments.

10/22/1999 Letter to CAs regarding extension of comment period on DEIS to 12/01/1999.

11/02/1999 Letter from Park County, Wyoming requesting hearing in St. Anthony, Idaho and

requesting original DEIS document.

11/03/1999 Letter from Paul Kruse to NPS Director Stanton regarding CA counties’ complaint

about release of ARD report on the air quality in YNP without providing the report to

the CAs for review prior to release to the public.

11/24/1999 Letter from Superintendent Finley to Charles Johnstone, Park County, Wyoming

commissioners, responding to November 2, 1999 commissioners' letter: deny

additional public hearing in St. Anthony, Idaho and clarify that no known

amendments to DEIS made in Washington D.C.

11/30/1999 Fax/letter to CAs regarding extension of comment period on DEIS to December 15

12/08/1999 Letter from Bill Paddleford, Teton County, Wyoming commissioner, regarding

concerns about socio-economics impacts

12/13-14/1999 Letters to Superintendent Finley from Park County, Montana and Park County,

Wyoming requesting explanation of comment period extension, copies of comments,

list of winter use studies completed or to be completed and study abstracts, and all

extension requests and approvals

1/26/2000 Letter from Kim Raap, Wyoming CA representative, requesting copies of comments;

update of comment tally; list of winter use studies and status, funding sources for

studies, study designs; information on the NPS use of 4-stroke Arctic Cat

snowmobiles

2/11/2000 "Draft Report Summer 1999 Visitor Survey Yellowstone, GTNP, and the GYA:

Analysis and Results" released to CAs with request for their comments

2/25/2000 Fax to CAs to inform them of 03/10/2000 CA meeting in Jackson, Wyoming

3/02/2000 Report: "Air Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage in National Parks"

released to CAs before public release

3/13/2000 Meet with cooperating agencies in Jackson, Wyoming, to inform them of the

preferred alternative leaning, and process on comment analysis. Invitation to

cooperators to comment. Cooperating agencies provided with copies of comments

3/22/2000 Letter to Don Barry, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for USFWS† and Parks, from

Governors Kempthorne, Racicot, and Geringer as the three states’ formal response on

revised alternative G from the March 13 CA meeting

3/23/2000 Draft meeting notes from March 13 CA meeting sent for review to CAs, Pam Buline,

field representative for Wyoming Senator Craig Thomas

4/04/2000 Report: "Draft Report National Phone Survey of Attitudes Toward Management of

YNP" released to CAs, with request for their comments

4/04/2000 Cooperating Counties letter to Don Barry, Assistant Secretary, as formal comments

on revised alternative G from the March 13 CA meeting

4/12/2000 CAs mailed additional comment letters that were not available at the March 13

meeting

4/18/2000 Fax and letter with three page detailed description of revised alternative G to CAs, as

requested at May 18, 2000 CA meeting
A-4

Date Event/Action

4/24/2000 Kim Raap, State of Wyoming, letter to Steve Iobst requesting items to be put on

agenda of May 18 CA meeting

4/25/2000 Winter entrance statistics sent to Paul Kruse per his request

5/12/2000 Comment summaries and executive summary of comments on DEIS sent to CAs

5/12/2000 Final Report: “Winter 1998-99 Visitor Survey Yellowstone, GTNP, and the GYA"

released to CAs

5/18/2000 Meeting with all cooperators in Bozeman, Montana

5/22/2000 Annual “National Parks Day” meeting with the Community of Cody, Wyoming to

discuss the Winter Use Plan and the direction the national parks are heading with

regard to snowmobile use

5/24/2000 Draft meeting notes from May 18 CA meeting sent for review to CAs, Dalles

Scholes-field representative for U.S. Senator Enzi, and Todd O'Hair-field

representative for Congressman Hill

6/5/2000 Copies of preliminary FEIS† mailed to cooperating agencies for review

6/27/2000 Comments from cooperating agencies on preliminary FEIS due

†USFS=U.S. Forest Service; YNP=Yellowstone National Park; GTNP= Grand Teton National Park; GYA=Greater Yellowstone Area;

USFWS=U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; CA=Cooperating Agencies.

Other meetings that pertained to Winter Use are described below.

Since 1995, Yellowstone National Park (YNP) has been party to an agreement sponsored by the

Gallatin County, Montana Commissioners “Concerning a Coordinated Ecosystem Approach to

Planning in Gallatin County” that includes the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land

Management, City of Bozeman, Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, and the Montana Department

of State Lands. Park staff usually attends the thrice-yearly meetings, and winter use has been a

typical update or discussion subject at most sessions since mid-1997.

Superintendents from Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks, Forest Supervisors from the

Gallatin, Targhee-Caribou, Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bridger-Teton, Shoshone, and Custer

National Forests, and the Manager of the National Elk Refuge are part of the Greater Yellowstone

Coordinating Committee (GYCC). The interagency winter use assessment was sponsored by the

GYCC, and the new Winter Use Plan and EIS have been discussed since 1998.

THE DRAFT PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES

The alternatives for this EIS were formulated by the NPS in accordance with the CEQ

Regulations to use the proposals of cooperating agencies “to the maximum extent possible

consistent with its responsibility as lead agency.” A series of alternative concepts workshops

were held with the cooperating agencies and NPS representatives on the local and regional levels

(40 CFR §1501.6(a)(2)). On October 14-16, 1998, the NPS hosted an alternatives concept

workshop in Idaho Falls, Idaho. Representatives from all nine cooperating agencies were broken

into five interagency teams that also included the NPS representatives. The primary role of the

NPS representatives was to provide technical expertise in areas such as park operations and

wildlife management. Teams were provided with documents regarding the dictates of federal law

and Park Service mission and policy. Groups clarified the issues identified through the scoping

process and formulated and mapped their own set of management actions and alternatives.
A-5

At the conclusion of the workshop, a representative presented each group’s alternatives concepts

to the entire assembly. Final presentations were recorded on two audiotapes that were

subsequently transcribed. The following is a list of ideas for actions that emerged from that

workshop with the cooperating agencies. Ideas have been categorized by goal and/or subject.

COOPERATING AGENCY ALTERNATIVES CONCEPTS

Increase access and affordability through road plowing:

• Plow the road from West Yellowstone, Montana to Old Faithful with no snowmobile route alongside

• Plow the road from West Yellowstone to Old Faithful with snowmobile route alongside

• Plow the road from West Yellowstone to Old Faithful and allow mass transit (snowcoach) only

throughout the rest of the park

• Plow the roads from Madison to Norris, West Yellowstone, Montana to Old Faithful

• Do not plow the road from Colter Bay to Flagg Ranch (groomed snowmachines route instead)

• Plow the Teton Park Road from Moose to Jackson Lake Junction

Encourage/discourage use by season or time:

• Lengthen the winter season

• Allow only snowcoaching and skiing during the last two weeks of season

• Keep roads open only during daylight hours

Encourage/discourage use by grooming or maintenance levels:

• Maintain all groomed surfaces more frequently for improved visitor experiences

• Groom Grassy Lake Road more frequently

• Groom Grassy Lake Road less frequently

• Groom west side routes less frequently

• Groom fewer ski trails

• Do not groom ski trails in either park

• Attach grooming machine to the back of snowcoaches

Encourage/discourage use levels via facilities:

• Initiate overnight lodging at Canyon/Lake/Jackson Lake Lodge

• Provide additional low-cost accommodations at Old Faithful

• Reduce overnight accommodations at Old Faithful

• Create a backcountry hut system

• Upgrade/create additional warming huts/restrooms

• Concentrate amenities at entrance points to the parks--Center of parks provide a “wilderness island

experience”

Increase diversity of opportunities:

• Introduce motorized and nonmotorized zones to Yellowstone Lake

• Initiate sleigh rides at Mammoth Hot Springs

• Groom campground roads for skiing

• Groom ski trails near major destination areas in both parks

• Do not groom Teton Park Road and Moose-Wilson Road—allow only nonmotorized use there

• Open Grassy Lake Road to outfitters

Encourage/discourage use by adding, changing, and/or eliminating additional/

alternative motorized routes:

• Create new route through Bechler area to Old Faithful
A-6

• Open Potholes area to motorized use

• Open off-trail motorized play areas at Jackson Lake, the Parkway, and the southwest quadrant of YNP

below the Continental Divide

• Move the Continental Divide Snowmobile Trail (CDST) to utility corridor

• Open utility corridors at Slough Creek to motorized use

• Open utility corridors at Yellowstone Lake to motorized use

• Close the CDST through Grand Teton National Park (GTNP)

Initiate and/or encourage alternative transportation, such as mass transportation:

• Create a “hyper-car” alternative (similar to monorail) to destination points

• Remove snowmobiling, institute oversnow mass transit only

• Create subsidized oversnow shuttle to increase access and affordability

Wildlife closures/restrictions to use:

• Prohibit recreation in winter wildlife range

• Prohibit stopping/getting off machines or leaving trail/designated routes

• Allow hunting by Native Americans to curb ungulate populations

• Allow skiing in winter range, mitigate through education

• Post wildlife migrations daily, adjust visitor use patterns/routes accordingly

• Eliminate ski trail at Blacktail Plateau

Adaptive management:

• Utilize adaptive wildlife management

General:

• Physically separate motorized from nonmotorized uses

• Prohibit motorized use on Jackson Lake

• Prohibit snowplanes on Teton Park Road

• Work with states and local communities to coordinate visitor recreation opportunities

Require clean and quiet machines:

• Phasing concept:

2000/2001 ethanol/methanol and synthetic fuels only sold in park;

2001/2002 green machines required for all commercial trips;

2008/2009 all green machines

• Phasing concept:

2 to 5 years alternative fuels and lubes;

5 years direct two-stroke and alternative fuels and lubes;

10 to 20 electric or hybrid fuel cell;

• Require clean, quiet machines on all park roads

• Increase emphasis on emission and sound controls

• Continue to use today’s emissions and sound standards

• Require clean, quiet snowmachine use on Jackson Lake and West Thumb

• Require clean, quiet motorized use on Teton Park Road

• Initiate a progressive 5 year sound abatement program

• Mandate new technology as it becomes available

Implement permits, reservations, and/or fees through the following mechanisms:

• Differential pricing: e.g., reduce entrance fees during slower seasons

• Fee increases to manage use levels

• Use limitations (number of visitors)
A-7

• Permit/reservation system

• Safety certification

• A cap on snowmobile numbers at current levels of use

After the October alternatives concepts workshop, representatives from the NPS held similar

workshops with the NPS employees at the local and regional levels. From the meetings,

representatives formulated an initial set of draft preliminary alternatives based on the concepts

and ideas generated at all the workshops and during public scoping.

COOPERATING AGENCY ALTERNATIVES CONCEPTS INCLUDED IN THE

INITIAL DRAFT PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES

Many innovative suggestions or comments by the cooperating agencies were incorporated into

the purpose and need for action. While formulating the draft preliminary alternatives,

representatives of the NPS reviewed all of the management actions listed above, as well as those

suggested by the NPS employees in workshops held in YNP and GTNP for:

a) relevance to the purpose, need, and scope of the document,

b) contribution to its goals, and

c) accordance with the dictates of federal law and the Park Service mission

Many of the ideas generated at the workshop were included in the draft preliminary alternatives

that were distributed to the cooperating agencies on November 20, 1998. Below is a list of those

ideas, indexed according to the letter-name of the draft preliminary alternatives in which they

appeared.1

Sixty-eight percent of the ideas generated at the alternatives concept workshop that were within

the scope of the purpose and need of this EIS, and could potentially help to resolve that need,

appeared in the initial set of draft preliminary alternatives.

Increase access and affordability through road plowing (4 of 7):

• Plow the road from West Yellowstone, Montana to Old Faithful and allow all-wheeled vehicles with no

snowmobile route alongside; A

• Plow the road from West Yellowstone to Old Faithful and allow all-wheeled vehicles with snowmachine

route alongside; A

• Plow the roads from Madison to Norris, West Yellowstone, Montana to Old Faithful; A

• Do not plow the road from Colter Bay to Flagg Ranch (groomed snowmachines route instead); B, C

Encourage/discourage use by season or time (2 of 3):

• Allow only snowcoaching and skiing during last two weeks (changed to “month,” in certain area) of

season; A

• Keep roads open only during daylight hours; B, C (lower nighttime limit), D

 

1

 The initial set of draft preliminary alternatives (released November 20, 1998) included four alternatives, and the

revised set (released April 19, 1999) included seven. The alternatives common to the two sets are similar but not

identical. The three remaining alternatives in the revised set include a no action alternative and two alternatives whose

elements were drawn from the initial set of alternatives. The two alternatives sets generally correspond as follows, with

the initial set listed first: A=C, B=D, C=E, and D=F. These letters correspond to the initial set of draft preliminary

alternatives, rather than the letter-names of the revised draft preliminary alternatives.
A-8

Encourage/discourage use by grooming or maintenance levels (3 of 7):

• Maintain all groomed surfaces more frequently for improved visitor experiences; A

• Groom Grassy Lake Road less frequently; B

• Groom Grassy Lake Road more frequently; A

Encourage/discourage use levels via facilities (1 of 6):

• Upgrade/create additional warming huts/restrooms; A, B

Increase diversity of opportunities (2 of 6):

• Groom campground roads for skiing; A, B

• Groom ski trails near major destination areas in both parks A, B

Encourage/discourage use by adding, changing, and/or eliminating additional/

alternative motorized routes (3 of 7):

• Move the CDST to utility corridor (or away from road); A, B

• Open utility corridors in Lake/Fishing Bridge area to motorized use; A

• Close the CDST through GTNP (provide shuttle service); C

Initiate and/or encourage alternative transportation, such as mass transportation

(1 of 3):

• Create subsidized oversnow shuttle to increase access and affordability; B

Wildlife closures/restrictions to use (2 of 6):

• Prohibit recreation in winter wildlife range; C, D

• Prohibit stopping/getting off machines or leaving trail/designated routes; D

Adaptive management (1 of 1):

• Utilize adaptive wildlife management; C

General (2 of 4):

• Separate uses; A, B

• Prohibit motorized use on Jackson Lake; C, D

Require clean and quiet machines (4 of 7):

• Phasing concept; A, B, D

2000/2001 ethanol/methanol and synthetic fuels only sold in park (changed to 2001/2002 to allow grace

period for implementation);

2001/2002 green machines required for all commercial trips (changed to 2002/2003 to allow grace period

for implementation);

2007/2008 all green machines

• Require clean, quiet machines on all park roads; B, D

• Increase emphasis on emission and sound controls; A, B, C

• Mandate new technology as it becomes available; C

Implement permits/reservations/fees:

• Implement safety program; B

IDEAS CONSIDERED BUT NOT INCLUDED IN THE INITIAL DRAFT

PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES

Ideas that were considered but not incorporated into the initial draft preliminary alternatives fell

into four categories.

A. Outside the scope of the purpose and need of this EIS and/or within the scope of a concurrent EIS,
A-9

B. Outside the scope of the purpose and need for this EIS and/or illegal according to federal statute or

Executive Order,

C. Outside the scope of a programmatic plan, or

D. Not effective means for resolving the need and meeting the objectives of this EIS (see the NPS

Director’s Order 12, Sec. 207(B), “Reasonable Alternatives”).

Ideas that fall into each category are discussed below.

A. Management actions outside the scope of the purpose and need of this EIS and/or within the

scope of a concurrent EIS:

1. Initiate overnight lodging at Canyon/Lake/Jackson Lake Lodge

2. Provide additional low-cost accommodations at Old Faithful

3. Reduce overnight accommodations at Old Faithful

4. Create a backcountry hut system

5. Initiate sleigh rides at Mammoth Hot Springs

6. Open the Grassy Lake Road to outfitters

Because all of these actions refer to activities or services to be conducted in the park by private

parties charging a fee, they specifically fit the definition of commercial services, and so would be

more appropriately addressed in a Commercial Services Plan (CSP). The CSPs for all three park

units are currently in process. This also becomes clear in examining the purpose, need, and scope

of each plan; whereas the scope of the Winter Use Plans/EIS requires that it focus on “desired

resource conditions and experiences, rather than on the details of how they should be achieved,”

the CSP is specifically designed to determine a) what types of services and facilities are

appropriate to the National Park, and b) what levels of appropriate services and facilities are

necessary to serve visitors (Project Agreement, Winter Use Plans/EIS for Yellowstone and Grand

Teton National Parks and the John D Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway; Grand Teton

Commercial Services Plan; Draft Yellowstone Commercial Services Plan, 1/8/98). Further, the

current draft preliminary winter use plans alternatives are consistent with the management action

in the Commercial Services Plan, and some of the ideas listed here are currently being analyzed

in the Environmental Assessment which will accompany the CSPs.

B. Management actions outside the scope of the purpose and need for this EIS and/or illegal

according to federal statute or Executive Order:

1. Create new route through Bechler area to Old Faithful

2. Open Potholes area to motorized use

3. Open off-trail motorized play areas at the Potholes, the Parkway, and the SW quadrant of YNP

below the Continental Divide

4. Allow hunting by Native Americans in order to curb ungulate populations

Because the area suggested for development in management action 1 has been recommended for

wilderness designation, implementation of that action would constitute a violation of several
A-10

federal statutes and policies that govern the NPS. 2 Section 6:3 of the NPS Management Policies

states that:

The Park Service will take no action that would diminish the

wilderness suitability of an area recommended for wilderness

study or for wilderness designation until the legislative process

has been completed.

Executive Order (EO) 11644 (Amended 11989) states that:

(4) Areas and trails shall not be located in officially designated wilderness or primitive areas. Areas

and trails shall be located in areas of the National Park system, Natural areas or National Wildlife

Refuges and Game Ranges only if the respective agency head determines that off road vehicle use in

such locations will not adversely effect their natural, aesthetic, or scenic values.

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR 1, Sec. 2.18) states that:

The use of snowmobiles is prohibited, except on designated routes

and water surfaces that are used by motor vehicles or motorboats

during other seasons. Routes and water surfaces designated for

snowmobile use shall be promulgated as special regulations.

Snowmobiles are prohibited except where designated and only when

their use is consistent with the park’s natural, cultural, scenic and

aesthetic values, safety considerations, park management objectives,

and will not disturb wildlife or damage park resources.

Implementation of actions 2 and 3 would similarly violate EO 11644 (Amended 11989) and 36

CFR 1, Sec. 2.18. Park staff members also believe that these actions could lead to serious

adverse resource impacts, particularly in geothermal areas. It is possible that some of these

management actions would be contrary to the Purpose and Need statement of this plan, which

states that “winter recreation within Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks should

complement or remain subordinate to the unique aspects of each landscape within the ecosystem”

(Project Agreement, Winter Use Plans/EIS for Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and

the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway).

Implementation of action 4 would constitute a violation of 36 CFR 1, Sec. 2.2, which prohibits

hunting in the National Parks except for the JDRMP. Instituting this action is also beyond the

scope of this EIS, as it would require the establishment of a wildlife carrying capacity for YNP, a

topic that would be more appropriately addressed in a resource or wildlife management plan.

C. Management actions outside the scope of a programmatic plan:

1. Attach grooming machines to the back of snowcoaches

2. Implement differential pricing. For instance, reduce entrance fees during slower seasons

3. Implement fee increases to manage use levels

 

2

 Related to the subject of human development, the federal Wilderness Act (1964) defines “wilderness” as “an area of

undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human

habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to

have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable”

(Wilderness Act, 78 Stat. 987, 1964).
A-11

As outlined in the Director’s Order 2: Park Planning, there are four levels of planning in which

the NPS engages: General Management, Strategic, Implementation, and Annual Performance.

The scope of this document places it within the category of General Management Planning,

which focuses on “why the park was established and what resource conditions and visitor

experiences should be achieved and maintained over time” (Director’s Order 2: Park Planning;

USDOI; May, 1998, p5). Because they deal specifically with methods by which goals could be

achieved, the management actions listed here would be more appropriately considered in an

Implementation Planning document. According to the NPS planning policy, “implementation

planning will usually tier from a general management plan, or its equivalent, and it will analyze

and describe specific actions and locations for meeting a plan objective. As is outlined in its

Purpose and Need and Scope, this EIS is designed to develop a programmatic plan for achieving

long-term goals rather than establishing site specific actions or actions that do not require EIS

analysis for approval (such as speed limits, signing or enforcement actions).

D. Management actions that were determined ineffective for meeting the objectives of this EIS:

1. Groom west side routes less frequently

2. Introduce motorized and nonmotorized zones to Yellowstone Lake

3. Open utility corridors at Slough Creek to motorized use

4. Groom fewer ski trails

5. Do not groom ski trails in either park

6. Allow skiing in winter range; mitigate through education

7. Post wildlife migrations daily, adjust visitor use patterns/routes accordingly

8. Create a backcountry hut system

9. Create a “hyper-car” alternative (similar to monorail) to destination points

10. Prohibit snowplanes on Teton Park Road

11. Create a “wilderness island” experience

Management actions 1 and 2 would not effectively contribute to the goals of the EIS because

their implementation would pose significant safety risks to park visitors. Due to the volume of

visitors entering the park from the West Entrance (48% of all winter recreational visitors from

December 1994-March 1999), action 1 could cause dangerously poor road conditions, and make

even periodic grooming very difficult (Monthly Travel Data Reports, YNP Visitor Services

Office). Action 2 is impracticable because the Lake’s many thermal features and rapidly

changing ice conditions make it unsafe for winter use activities. In spite of YNP’s extreme

climate, some areas of Yellowstone Lake remain ice-free throughout the winter. For instance, at

Mary Bay/Sedge Bay, hydro-thermal vents, some located only 20 feet beneath the Lake’s surface,

produce hot springs of 80 degrees Fahrenheit which often prevent the Lake from ever freezing

over near the shoreline (Charles Remsen, J. Val Klump, Jerry Kaster, Robert Paddock, Patrick

Anderson, & James Maki, “Hydrothermal Springs and Gas Fumaroles in Yellowstone Lake,

Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming” National Geographic Research 6(4): 509-515 (1990);

Jerry Kaster, J. Val Klump, & Charles Remsen, “Sub-lacustrine Fumarole Communities in

Yellowstone Lake: Naturally-Occurring Hydroponic System” Final Report, National Geographic

Society Grant No. 3170-85, University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee Center for Great Lakes

Studies, (no date), 2-4). West Thumb is another highly active thermal area, and geothermal

studies conducted during the 1980s indicate that hydro-thermal springs may be a widespread
A-12

phenomenon throughout the Lake (Kaster, Klump, & Remsen, “Sub-lacustrine Fumarole

Communities in Yellowstone Lake,” 4). In the winters of both 1997-98 and 1998-99, the Lake

inexplicably froze and then thawed in the middle of the winter (Will Rizzo, “Park officials ponder

unfrozen lake” Livingston Enterprise, February 17, 1999).

Because Slough Creek is accessed via the plowed road that runs between Gardiner and Cooke

City, Montana, potential snowmobilers would have to trailer their machines for 24-29 miles in

order to take a very brief ride. The Slough Creek area has several other drawbacks, including:

• The area has been identified by biologists as important wildlife winter range

• Snow cover is unreliable at its lower elevation

• Other utility corridors were proposed for this use in the initial draft alternatives

Actions 4, 5, 6, and 7 were proposed as ways to reduce impacts to wildlife. However, because

research has found that animals better adapt to well-defined areas of concentrated use than to

intermittent use patterns, none of these actions would produce a significant benefit toward

realizing this goal. Action 7 is being explored on a seasonal basis, but is problematic due to the

difficulty of tracking wildlife on a daily basis. Also, evidence of grooming for visitor use can

remain on the snow surface for lengthy periods, and so redirecting visitor use on a daily would

appear to represent a greater impact on wildlife.

Constructing a series of backcountry huts and connecting trails would appear to be inconsistent

with management prescription 11 for this EIS, which addresses backcountry areas where use is

permitted. Prescription 11 states not only that backcountry areas must have “no facilities,” but

also must “generally appear natural and untouched by humans,” with “little to no evidence of

resource modification” (Management Prescriptions matrix for Draft Preliminary Winter Use

Alternatives). Facilities for overnight lodging are included only in prescription 1, which addresses

destination areas. It is questionable at this time whether these additional facilities would be

utilized to such an extent as to justify their addition. In winter 1996-97, the existing 10-yurt

camp at Canyon logged only 418 user days, and only 114 backcountry permits were issued (YNP

Concessions Office, YNP Backcountry Office). Should the demand arise for this use, temporary

yurt facilities could be considered for other areas and administered through concession plans

following additional environmental analysis.

Although the benefits of action 9 might eventually prove to be attractive and substantial, the NPS

must consider cost-effective alternatives for this EIS. Implementation costs of action 9 would be

enormous, and because a hyper-car system would require year-round implementation, this action

would be best addressed in a general management plan. Also, YNP’s topography is not as

conducive to the implementation of such as a system as is the topography of other parks where

rail systems have already been installed. For instance, in certain parts of the park such as Sylvan

Pass, the permanent elevated track of the system would be highly vulnerable to occasional

avalanches. As a result, safety considerations and maintenance costs (on top of the initial

building and implementation costs) would be major concerns. This management action is

technically and economically unfeasible at the current time (see the NPS Director’s Order 12,

Sec. 207(B), “Reasonable Alternatives”).
A-13

The idea of creating a “wilderness island” experience (action 11) was considered for

incorporation into the alternatives, but determined to be undesirable because of a considerable

increase in the cost of visitor access to the park. Individuals without personal snowmobiles

would pay for two forms of transport; a full day’s snowmobile rental as well as a snowcoach tour.

However, elements of this concept have been incorporated into several of the alternatives.

Alternatives C and D separate uses through timing and zoning, and alternative F closes park roads

at sunset. Visitors engaging in nighttime activities in YNP would also have to spend the night in

the Park’s interior under alternative F.

COOPERATING AGENCY COMMENTS ON PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES

Cooperating agency representatives were asked to submit their comments on the draft preliminary

alternatives by December 7, 1998. Those comments appear below:

• Accompany road closures with road openings

• Assess possible changes in recreational use and distribution under each alternative

• Assess possible use/demand changes in gateway communities under each alternative

• Change “biodegradable lubricants” to “synthetic low-emission lube oils”

• Change “ethanol/methanol” to “10% ethanol blend”

• Change “hypercar” to “cybercar”

• Clarify all concept statements

• Clarify that alternative A will maximize opportunities, not use

• Clarify why the NPS might consider re-opening roads to snowcoaches only in D

• Clarify/improve proposed methods of measuring decibel and emissions levels

• Consider effects on National Forests if dirty sleds and February traffic are displaced to them

• Define “natural quiet”

• Define “unnatural wildlife migrations”

• Develop an alternative D for GNTP

• Develop more nonmotorized trails

• Discuss ideas which were eliminated because they were judged to be implementation questions

• Discuss ideas which were eliminated because they were judged to be illegal or beyond the scope of the

EIS

• Do not close the CDST from the east boundary to Colter Bay

• Do not introduce subsidized snowcoach service

• Ensure that any plowing of the road from West Yellowstone to Old Faithful is accompanied by a

snowmobile trail alongside it

• Establish a strategy for resolving user conflicts

• Establish backcountry huts

• Establish measurable and scientific standards for management

• Establish quantitative measures which express the essential elements of the EIS’s purpose, and allow for

comparison between the current state and those which would be provided under the alternatives

• Establish wildlife carrying capacity

• Expand lodging and eating facilities to include Lake, Canyon, and Grant Village

• Form cooperative associations with gateway communities in order to fully inform visitors about the

range of winter recreational opportunities

• Give CA’s the opportunity to review/comment upon/repeat results of all scientific studies related to road

closures
A-14

• Increase internal facilities

• Justify East Entrance closure

• Justify nighttime road closure

• Let the cooperating agencies decide whether illegality is actually an impediment to consideration

• Make GTNP’s alternative C into D, make new C or make alternative B into C, create new B

• Move closing the Grassy Lake Road to alternative D

• Move closure of Jackson Lake to alternative D

• Move nighttime road closure to alternative C, nighttime speed limit to B

• Move the East Entrance road closure action to alternative D

• Offer alternative which leaves CDST in road ditch

• Open Dunraven Pass

• Open the CDST and Grassy Lake Roads to outfitters

• Provide a full-scale no action alternative for examination

• Provide more detail about the proposed location of interior campsites and new warming huts

• Reconsider the idea of reducing lodging at Old Faithful

• Remove part in A about limiting February travel from Fishing Bridge to Norris snowcoaches

• Remove part in A about plowing from Madison to Mammoth

• Remove references to the nearby availability of places where people can engage in activities similar to

those which would be prohibited in the parks

• Separate consideration of water quality, emissions, and sound issues

• Specify how visitor uses will be separated

• Specify issues/needs being addressed under each alternative

• Specify what indicators and standards will be used for determining visitor carrying capacity, and how

those standards would guide implementation

• Speculate about what effects might result from adaptive management possibilities

• Stop “hiding behind the CFR”

• Vary season length

The comments of the cooperating agencies proved helpful as the NPS continued to revise the

alternatives. The following changes were not necessarily a direct response to suggestions made

by the cooperating agencies, but they address the agencies’ input at this stage. The parenthetical

addition in each bulleted comment indicates a change that NPS made.

• Change “biodegradable lubricants” to “synthetic low-emission lube oils” (language changed)

• Change “ethanol/methanol” to “10% ethanol blend” (language changed)

• Clarify all concept statements (clarified/expanded)

• Clarify that alternative A will maximize opportunities, not use (language changed from “access” to

“opportunities”)

• Clarify why the NPS might consider re-opening roads to snowcoaches only in D (language changed to

reflect consideration of unspecific “reopening”)

• Clarify/improve proposed methods of measuring decibel and emissions levels, do not rely on automobile

standards (clarified, changed)

• Define “natural quiet” in alternative B (D) (language eliminated)

• Do not introduce subsidized snowcoach service (element eliminated)

• Form cooperative associations with gateway communities in order to fully inform visitors about the

range of winter recreational opportunities (alternatives B, C, D, F, and G all now include language about

forging partnerships with gateway communities in efforts to inform visitors about the full range of

available winter recreation opportunities)
A-15

• Provide a full-scale no action alternative for examination (Provided by revised alternative A)

• Provide more detail about the proposed location of interior campsites and new warming huts (provided)

• Separate consideration of water quality, emissions, and sound issues (separated)

• Vary season length (alternatives B and C both include this element)

Many of the remaining comments involved issues that are addressed above. Other comments

requested that the sort of analysis provided in the Draft EIS be provided within the text of the

alternatives. Other comments request unconditional implementation of suggestions that have

been dismissed with rationale by the NPS (such as the comment that a plowed road from West

Yellowstone to Old Faithful “must” be accompanied by a snowmobile trail alongside it).

FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES

The preliminary draft alternatives were the focus of a January 1999 workshop process called

“Choosing by Advantages.” Participants included the NPS representatives from local (YNP),

regional (Denver Service Center), and national (Washington, D.C.) offices. CBA is a decisionmaking process based on advantages of different alternatives for a variety of factors or goals.

The advantages are weighed and summarized to help identify the preferred alternative. In the

“Choosing by Advantages” (CBA) process, the work group assigns a quantitative value to each

element of each existing alternative in terms of its relative advantage over all of the parallel

elements from other alternatives. (In this case, the original alternatives were evaluated in terms

of visitor enjoyment and opportunity, resource protection, effects on local communities, and

safety). The elements are evaluated in terms of lifecycle costs. Finally, each alternative is

assigned a total score that is charted onto an axis against its projected lifecycle costs. Desirable

alternatives feature high total scores and low lifecycle costs. In this case, the preliminary draft

alternative with the highest total score also had the highest projected lifecycle cost. The NPS

drew from existing alternatives to:

• Replace the highest-scoring alternative’s most costly elements with less costly elements which were

designed to fulfill similar needs but were not substantially lower in score than the more expensive

elements which they replaced, and

• Ensure that the best combinable ideas from each alternative were included in the Preferred alternative.

Alternative B resulted from this process, and combines ideas and elements of the four preliminary

draft alternatives to provide the most benefit for the dollars expended over time.

The revised draft preliminary alternatives still contain many ideas from both the initial

alternatives and the October cooperating agencies workshop. Following is a list of ideas

generated at the cooperating agencies workshop which were included in the revised preliminary

alternatives, indexed according to the letter-name of the revised draft preliminary alternative/s in

which they appeared. The proportion of ideas appearing in the revised draft preliminary

alternatives to the total number of ideas generated in each category has been noted. Based on

these numbers, 76% of the ideas generated at the workshop (which were within the scope of the

purpose and need of this EIS and could potentially help to resolve that need) appeared in the

revised draft preliminary alternatives. [Note: This number increases when overlapping

suggestions and those which were either outside the scope of this document or contrary to federal
A-16

statute are excluded from the calculation.] However, these numbers have been included only as

representations and not quantitative indicators.

Increase access and affordability through road plowing (3 of 7):

• Plow the road from West Yellowstone, Montana to Old Faithful and allow all-wheeled vehicles with no

snowmobile route alongside; B, C

• Plow the roads from Madison to Norris, West Yellowstone, Montana to

Old Faithful; C

• Do not plow the road from Colter Bay to Flagg Ranch (groomed snowmachines route instead); D

Encourage/discourage use by season or time (3 of 3):

• Allow only snowcoaching and skiing during last two weeks (changed to “month,” in certain area) of

season; C

• Keep roads open only during daylight hours; B, D, E (lower nighttime limit), F, G

• Lengthen the season; B, C

Encourage/discourage use levels via facilities (1 of 6):

• Upgrade/create additional warming huts/restrooms; B, C, D, G

Increase diversity of opportunities (2 of 6):

• Groom campground roads for skiing; B, C

• Groom ski trails near major destination areas in both parks; B, C, D, G

Encourage/discourage use via adding/changing/eliminating additional/

alternative motorized routes (3 of 7):

• Move the CDST to utility corridor (or away from road); B, C, D

• Open utility corridors in Lake/Fishing Bridge area (changed to Norris) to motorized use; C

• Close the CDST through GTNP (provide shuttle service); E, F

Initiate/encourage alternative/mass transportation (1 of 3):

• Limit oversnow motorized travel to snowcoaches; G

Wildlife closures/restrictions to use (2 of 6):

• Prohibit recreation in winter wildlife range; B, D, E, F

• Prohibit stopping/getting off machines or leaving trail/designated routes; F

Adaptive management (1 of 1):

• Use adaptive wildlife management; B, E

General (3 of 4):

• Separate uses; C, D

• Prohibit motorized use on Jackson Lake; B, E, F, G

• Work with gateway communities to inform visitors of the full range of winter recreation opportunities; B,

C, D, F, G

Require clean and quiet machines (4 of 7):

• Phasing concept: B, D 2000/2001 ethanol/methanol and synthetic fuels only sold in park (changed to

2001/2002 to allow grace period for implementation);

2001/2002 green machines required for all commercial trips (changed to 2002/2003 to allow grace period

for implementation);

2007/2008 all green machines

• Require clean, quiet machines on all park roads; B, D, F, G

• Increase emphasis on emission and sound controls; B, C, D, F, G
A-17

• Mandate new technology as it becomes available; B, F, G

Implement permits/reservations/fees (2 of 6):

• Implement safety program; B, D

• Implement reservation system; B

Two important elements of the initial draft preliminary alternatives that did not appear in the

revised draft preliminary alternatives included a) plowing the road from West Yellowstone to Old

Faithful and establishing a snowmobile route alongside the road, and b) instituting a subsidized

snowcoach system. Both these ideas have attractive aspects. It was determined, however, that

establishing such a bi-modal transportation route on the West Yellowstone-Old Faithful road

would create safety hazards. The cost of both grooming and plowing on the road from West

Yellowstone would be twice as costly as current operations. The lifecycle costs of a subsidized

snowcoach system made that action similarly unfeasible (see the NPS Director’s Order 12, Sec.

207(B), “Reasonable Alternatives”).

The revised preliminary draft alternatives were distributed to the cooperating agencies on April

20, 1999 for a review during the comment period. The Agencies were required to submit their

comments, as well as analyses of impacts in their specific areas of expertise, to the NPS by May

24, 1999. In response to this deadline, Senators Conrad Burns, Michael Crapo and Larry Craig

sent a letter of request to the NPS Director Robert Stanton expressing their desire that the

Agencies be allowed more time for review, comment, and production for analysis. Because of

the tight, court-dictated time schedule governing the EIS, the NPS was unable to honor that

request.
APPENDIX B

PREPARERS

B-1

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

National Park Service, Denver Service Center

Clifford L. Hawkes, Job Captain, Natural Resource Specialist

Miki Stuebe, Landscape Architect/Planner,

National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park

Sarah Creachbaum, Point of Contact, Planner

Alice Wondrak, Planning Assistant

National Park Service, Grand Teton National Park and John D. Rockefeller, Jr.,

Memorial Parkway

Robert Rossman, Point of Contact, Planner

Madeleine Vander Heyden, Wildlife Biologist

Other National Park Service Support

Denver Service Center or Intermountain Regional Office

Beverely C. Boecher, Visual Information Specialist

Greg Cody, National Environmental Policy Act/Section 106 Specialist

Judy Dersch, Visual Information Specialist

Rick Ernenwein, Sound Specialist

Glenda Heronema, Visual Information Specialist

Joan Huff, Visual Information Specialist

Mary M. Magee, Natural Resource Specialist

Sam W. Vaughn, Interpretive Planner, Harpers Ferry Center

John Vimont, Air Resource Specialist, Air Resource Division

Yellowstone National Park

Thomas Barr, Planning Assistant

Mary Hektner, Environmental Specialist

Kristin Legg, Recreation Planner

Dan Reinhart, Resource Management Specialist/Wildlife Biologist

John Sacklin, Supervisory Planner

Grand Teton National Park and John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway

George Helfrich, Management Assistant

Tami DeGrosky, Facility Management Specialist

Karin McCoy, Biologist

Mason Reid, Wildlife Biologist
B-2

COOPERATORS

Carl Wilgus, Representing the State of Idaho

Tamra Cikaitoga, Representing Fremont County, Idaho

Paul R. Kruse, Representing Fremont County, Idaho (also representing Park and Gallatin

counties, Montana, Park and Teton counties, Wyoming)

Julie Lapeyre, Representing the State of Montana

William Murdock, Representing Gallatin County, Montana

Ellen Woodbury, Representing Park County, Montana

Kim Raap, Representing, the State of Wyoming

Charles W. Johnstone, Representing Park County, Wyoming

William Paddleford, Representing Teton County, Wyoming

Rebecca Aus, Representing the U.S. Forest Service

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CONSULTANTS

Scott Babcock, Natural Resource Planner, ERO Resources Corp.

Kimberly Bissell, Environmental Planner, ERO Resources Corp.

William Bowlby, Sound Engineer, Bowlby and Associates, Inc.

Andrew Cole, Natural Resource Planner, ERO Resources Corp.

Martha L. Clark, Technical Editor, ERO Resources Corp.

John Duffield, President, Bioeconomics, Inc.; Research Professor, University of Montana

Ouattara Chris Fatogoma, Senior Air Quality Scientist, EA Engineering, Science and Technology

David Hesker, Visual Information Specialist

Chris Menge, Sound Engineer, Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc.

Chris Neher, Economist, Bioeconomics, Inc.

Daniel Raley, P.E., Project Manager, EA Engineering, Science and Technology

Anjie C. Saunders, Project Manager, ERO Resources Corp.

Justin Spring, Natural Resource Specialist, ERO Resources Corp.
APPENDIX C

LEGISLATION, EXECUTIVE ORDERS,

REGULATIONS, AND POLICY

C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
C-9
C-10
C-11
C-12

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE REGULATIONS AND POLICY EXCERPTS

Proposed Revisions to NPS Management Policies

In January 2000 the National Park Service (NPS) solicited public comment on proposed

revisions to its 1988 Management Policies, which underscore the preservation mandate of

the NPS Organic Act and General Authorities Act. As the NPS was preparing this

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for publication, it continued to revise the

proposed policies and anticipated issuing the final policy revisions during summer or fall

2000. Excerpts of the proposed revisions are included below to provide the reader

information on the policies that may guide the decision on winter use in Grand Teton

National Park (GTNP), the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway (the Parkway),

and Yellowstone National Park (YNP).

Proposed Policy Excerpts – Overall Management Mandates for the National

Park Service

1.4.1 The Laws Generally Governing Park Management 

 

The most important general direction for Park Service managers is provided by interrelated

provisions of the NPS Organic Act of 1916, and the NPS General Authorities Act of 1970,

including amendments to the latter law enacted in 1978.

The key management-related provision of the Organic Act is:

[The National Park Service] shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as

national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified . . . by such means and

measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and

reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and

the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such

means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. (16 USC 1.)

Congress subsequently supplemented and clarified this through enactment of these key

management-related provisions of the General Authorities Act, as amended:

Congress declares that the national park system, which began with establishment of

Yellowstone National Park in 1872, has since grown to include superlative natural, historic, and

recreation areas in every major region of the United States, its territories and island possessions;

that these areas, though distinct in character, are united through their inter-related purposes and

resources into one national park system as cumulative expressions of a single national heritage;

that, individually and collectively, these areas derive increased national dignity and recognition

of their superlative environmental quality through their inclusion jointly with each other in one

national park system preserved and managed for the benefit and inspiration of all the people of

the United States; and that it is the purpose of this Act to include all such areas in the System

and to clarify the authorities applicable to the system. Congress further reaffirms, declares, and

directs that the promotion and regulation of the various areas of the National Park System, as

defined in section 1c of this title, shall be consistent with and founded in the purpose established

by section 1 of this title, to the common benefit of all the people of the United States. The

authorization of activities shall be construed and the protection, management, and

administration of these areas shall be conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of

the National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for

which these various areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be directly

and specifically provided by Congress. (16 USC 1a-1)
C-13

This section of Management Policies represents the Park Service’s

interpretation of these key statutory provisions.

1.4.2 Definitions 

As used in Management Policies , the following terms have the meanings indicated.

“Enjoyment” includes to derive benefit (including scientific knowledge) or inspiration

from a park, and includes enjoyment both by people who directly experience the park and

by those who appreciate it from afar.

The “impairment of park resources and values” means an adverse impact on one or more park

resources or values that interferes with the integrity of the park’s resources or values, or the

opportunities that otherwise would exist for the enjoyment of them, by the present or a future

generation. Impairment may occur from visitor activities, NPS activities in managing a park, or

activities undertaken by concessioners, contractors, and others operating in a park. As used here,

the impairment of park resources and values has the same meaning as the phrase “derogation of

the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established,” as used in the

General Authorities Act.

“Park resources and values” are all the resources and values of a park whose conservation is

essential to the purposes for which the area was included in the national park system, including

both the Organic Act’s fundamental purpose for all parks, as supplemented and clarified by the

General Authorities Act, and any additional purposes stated in a park’s establishing legislation or

proclamation. Under the Organic Act and the General Authorities Act, these resources and

values always include, but are not limited to, all of the following, to the extent they are present in

the park: the biological and physical processes that created the park and continue to act upon it;

scenic features; natural landscapes; natural sounds and odors; water and air resources; soils;

geological resources; paleontological resources; archeological resources; cultural landscapes;

ethnographic resources; historic and prehistoric sites and structures; museum collections; native

plants and animals; clear daytime vistas and night skies. The term also includes opportunities to

experience enjoyment of the above resources and values, to the extent that can be done without

impairing any of them.

“Park resources and values,” as used in Management Policies , do not include any attributes of a

park whose conservation is not essential to the purposes for which a park was designated. For

example, the term does not include non-native species or man-made structures that are not

historic or prehistoric, unless their conservation is essential to a specific additional purpose for

which an individual park was established.

1.4.5 The NPS Obligation to Conserve Park Resources and Values 

The Organic Act and the General Authorities Act establish a mandate to conserve park resources

and values. This mandate is independent of the separate prohibition on impairment, and so applies

all the time, with respect to all park resources and values, even when there is no risk that any park

resources or values may be impaired. NPS managers must always seek to find ways to conserve

park resources and values. However, the laws do give the Service the management discretion to

allow an impact to park resources and values when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the

purposes of a park, including providing for enjoyment of it or conserving other park resources and

values, so long as the impact does not constitute impairment of the affected resources and values.

1.4.6 The NPS Obligation to Provide for Public Enjoyment of Parks 

The laws clearly establish that enjoyment of park resources and values by the people of the United

States is part of the fundamental purpose of all parks.
C-14

Recognizing that the high-quality experience people expect and deserve in their national parks can

be assured only if the superb quality of park resources and values is left unimpaired, Congress has

provided that when there is an unavoidable conflict, conserving resources and values, not

providing for enjoyment, is to be predominant. There are dual elements to the Organic Act’s

single fundamental purpose, but those elements are not equal. Rather, the Act is explicit that

enjoyment of park resources and values is to be allowed only to the extent that can be done

without impairing those resources and values. This, the cornerstone of the Organic Act, assures

preservation both of a park’s resources and values and of the American people’s present and future

opportunities for enjoyment of them.

1.4.7 The NPS Obligation to Prevent the Impairment of Park Resources and Values 

Preserving park resources and values unimpaired is the core responsibility of NPS managers.

Impairment of park resources or values is never permissible under the law, unless directly and

specifically authorized by Congress. Any impact constituting an impairment is prohibited no

matter how long the impairment would last–regardless of whether it would be a temporary, shortterm, long-term, or permanent impairment.

1.4.8 Principles Guiding NPS Decisions on Conserving, Providing for the Enjoyment of, 

and Preventing Impairment of Park Resources and Values 

In making decisions on how to conserve, provide for enjoyment of, and prevent impairment of

park resources and values, NPS managers must be guided by the values expressed by Congress in

the Organic Act and the General Authorities Act. This means that NPS managers, in making their

management decisions, must assure the preservation of the high public value and integrity of the

national park system; the national dignity of parks; the superlative environmental quality of parks;

and the important role of parks in providing benefit and inspiration for all the people of the United

States.

1.4.10 Reviewing and Remedying Existing Impairments of Park Resources and Values 

When there is a reasonable question about whether ongoing activities have led or are leading to an

impairment of park resources or values, NPS managers shall investigate and determine if there is,

or will be, an impairment. If so, the managers shall take appropriate action, to the extent possible

within NPS authorities and available resources, to remedy the impairment. If it is necessary to

prohibit or limit a particular public use, the superintendent will ensure that the need for the action

is fully explained to visitors and the general public.
C-15

SOUND AND NATURAL QUIET

Applicable Regulations

A search of ordinances and laws applicable to sound sources in the national parks showed

that all current regulations apply only to the vehicle producing the sound, not to the

receiver. That is, sound emission limits are set for snowmobiles and snowplanes, but not

to sound levels from these vehicles at a specific location. There are no state or local

sound ordinances that apply to snowmobile or snowplane sound within the park

boundary.

36 CFR 2.18 Snowmobiles: This CFR specifies snowmobile maximum A-weighted

pass-by sound levels at a distance of 50 feet under full throttle.

• For snowmobiles manufactured prior to July 1, 1973, the maximum level is 86 dB(A).

• For snowmobiles manufactured between July 1, 1973 and July 1, 1975, the maximum is 82

dB(A).

• For snowmobiles manufactured after July 1, 1978, the maximum is 78 dB(A).

36 CFR 7.21 Grand Teton National Park: This CFR specifies maximum sound

emission levels at 50 feet under full throttle from snowmobiles at 78 dB(A) and from

snowplanes at 86 dB(A).

36 CFR 7.22 John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway: This CFR specifies

maximum sound emission levels at 50 feet under full throttle from snowplanes at 86

dB(A).

Policy Excerpts

The following excerpts describe park service definitions and policies regarding sound

and natural quiet in National Park Service areas.

NPS Management Policies of 1988 (chapter I, pages 3 - 4):

“The individual parks contain various tangible natural and cultural features such as

animals, plants, waters, geologic features, historic buildings and monuments, and

archeological sites. They also have intangible qualities such as natural quiet, solitude,

space, scenery, a sense of history, sounds of nature, and clear night skies that have

received congressional recognition and are important components of people’s

enjoyment of parks. These NPS Management Policies use the terms resources and

values to mean the full spectrum of tangible and intangible attributes for which parks

have been established and are being managed.

These NPS Management Policies recognize that all parks are complex mixtures of

values and resources, each with its own unique qualities and purposes, each requiring

specific treatment in the development and implementation of management strategies

and operational plans....The word ‘unimpaired’ plays an important role in the

conservation of resources and providing for present-day public enjoyment. Both

physical resources, such as wildlife and geological features, and intangible values,

such as scenic vistas and solitude, may be impaired.....It is NPS policy to treat potential

impairments in the same manner as known impairments.”

NPS Management Policies of 1988 (chapter IV, page 17):
C-16

The National Park Service will strive to preserve the natural quiet and the

natural sounds associated with the physical and biological resources of the

parks (for example, the sounds of the wind in the trees or of waves breaking on

the shore, the howl of the wolf, or the call of the loon). Activities causing

excessive or unnecessary unnatural sounds in and adjacent to parks, including

low-elevation aircraft overflights, will be monitored, and action will be taken

to prevent or minimize unnatural sounds that adversely affect park resources

or values or visitors’ enjoyment of them.

NPS Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park System, 1995 (Report

to Congress):

(page 74): These policy statements [from NPS Management Policies] make

clear the importance of natural quiet as a resource in many units of the

National Park System. This resource is defined as the natural ambient sound

conditions found in those units. It refers to the absence of mechanical noise,

but accepts the ‘self-noise’ of park visitors. ‘Self-noise’ is the noise generated

by the visitor - the tread of hiking boots on the trail, the creaking packframe,

rattle of pots or pans, talking, etc.

(page 76): Conclusion 3.1: Preserving natural quiet is an integral part of the

mission of the NPS. This is confirmed in law, policy, and the beliefs of NPS

managers.

(page 78): What is Natural Quiet?: Parks and wildernesses offer a variety of

unique, pristine sounds not found in most urban or suburban environments.

They also offer a complete absence of sounds that are found in such

environments. Together, these two conditions provide a very special dimension

to a park experience.... Quiet itself, in the absence of any discernible source

(especially man-made), is an important element of the feeling of solitude. Quiet

also affords visitors an opportunity to hear faint or very distant sounds (such

as animal activity, waterfalls, etc.). Such an experience provides an important

perspective on the vastness of the environment in which the visitor is located,

often beyond the visual boundaries determined by trees, terrain, and the like....

In considering natural quiet as a resource, the ability to hear clearly the

delicate and quieter intermittent sounds of nature, the ability to experience

interludes of extreme quiet for their own sake, and the opportunity to do so for

extended periods of time is what natural quiet is all about.

(page 80): Conclusion 3.3: The quiet afforded in park settings is virtually in a

range of its own, well below that which we experience in our normal daily

routine.... What Are the Characteristics of Natural Quiet? Generally low sound

levels, but with considerable variability over both time and location,

characterize the ambient sound environments in many national parks. The rise

and fall of the wind in a coniferous forest can change the ambient sound level

over a matter of minutes at a single location. Likewise, the synchronized

activity of insects such as crickets can produce substantial changes in the

ambient sound environment as well. From one location to the next, the

proximity of vegetation and water, the local insect population (and its normal

diurnal activity patterns), and the location’s susceptibility to winds can give

rise to large differences in ambient sound levels.

(page 85): In developing an approach to preserve natural quiet, the NPS

recognizes the following five important facts: 1. Natural quiet is a resource
C-17

for preservation within the NPS mandate. 2. The human auditory system is an

excellent mechanism for determining the presence or absence of natural quiet.

No available electronic device can duplicate human hearing for identifying

audible sounds produced by non-natural sources. 3. The difficulty of

preserving natural quiet is directly related to how quiet it is.... 4. Humans are

not always aware of sounds that are audible.... 5. Park settings can provide

levels of natural quiet so quiet that there is no sound to be heard except that

generated by the listener - the sounds of walking, breathing, heart pumping,

and blood flowing....

Excerpts from Proposed Revisions to NPS Management Policies

4.9 Soundscape Management

The National Park Service will preserve the natural ambient soundscapes of parks, which

exist in the absence of human-caused sound. The natural ambient soundscape is the

aggregate of all the natural sounds that occur in parks, together with the physical capacity

for transmitting natural sounds. Natural sounds occur within and beyond the range of

sounds that humans can perceive and can be transmitted through air, water, or solid

materials.

Some natural sounds in the natural ambient soundscape also are part of the biological

or other physical resource components of the park. Examples of such natural sounds

include:

• Sounds produced by such animals as birds, frogs, or katydids to define territories or aid in

attracting mates;

• Sounds produced by such animals as bats or porpoises to locate prey or navigate;

• Sounds received by such animals as mice or deer to detect and avoid predators or other danger;

and

• Sounds produced by physical processes, such as wind in the trees, claps of thunder, or falling

water.

The Service will restore degraded soundscapes to the natural ambient condition wherever

possible and will protect them from degradation due to human-caused noise.

Special Circumstances: Using appropriate management planning, parks will identify

what levels of human-caused sound can be accepted within the management purposes

of parks. The frequencies, magnitudes, and durations of human-caused sound

considered acceptable will vary throughout the park, being generally greater in

developed areas and generally lesser in undeveloped areas. The Service will monitor

in and adjacent to parks human activities that generate noise (undesirable humancaused sound) that adversely affects park soundscapes, including noise caused by

mechanical or electronic devices. The Service will take action to prevent or minimize

all noise that, through frequency, magnitude or duration, adversely affects the natural

ambient soundscape or other park resources or values, or that exceeds levels that have

been identified as acceptable to, or appropriate for, visitor uses at the sites being

monitored.

(See Use of Motorized Equipment 8.2.3, Overflights and Aviation Uses 8.4)

8.2.3 Use of Motorized Equipment

The variety of motorized equipment--including visitor vehicles, concessioner

equipment, and Park Service administrative or staff vehicles and equipment--that

operates in national parks has the potential to adversely impact park resources,
C-18

including the park’s natural soundscape. In addition to their natural values, natural

sounds, such as waves breaking on the shore, the roar of a river, and the call of a loon,

form a valued part of the visitor experience. Conversely, the sounds of motor vehicle

traffic, an electric generator, or loud music can greatly diminish the solemnity of a visit

to a national memorial, the effectiveness of a park interpretive program, or the ability

of a visitor to hear a bird singing its territorial song. Many parks that appear as they

did in historical context no longer sound the way they once did.

The Service will strive to preserve or restore the natural quiet and natural sounds

associated with the physical and biological resources of parks. To do this,

superintendents will carefully evaluate and manage how, when, and where motorized

equipment is used by all those--including park staff--who operate equipment in the parks.

Uses and impacts associated with the use of motorized equipment will be addressed in

park planning processes. Where such use is necessary and appropriate, the least

impacting equipment, vehicles, and transportation systems should be used. The natural

ambient sound level--that is, the environment of sound that exists in the absence of

human-caused noise--is the baseline condition, the standard against which current

conditions in a soundscape will be measured and evaluated.

(See Soundscape Management 4.9)

LEGISLATIVE DIRECTION, REGULATIONS AND POLICY ON

CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

The National Park Service is mandated to preserve and protect its cultural resources

through the Organic Act of 1916 (USC title 16) and such specific legislation as:

• The Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC 431),

• The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 470)

• The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 USC 4321, 4331, 4332)

• The Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 USC 470).

In addition the management of cultural resources would be guided by:

• The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s implementing regulations regarding the

“Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800)

• The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (1995)

• Chapter V of the National Park Service’s Management Policies (1988)

• The National Park Service’s Cultural Resources Management Guideline (NPS-28, 1996).

As part of its cultural resource management responsibilities, the National Park Service

strives to inventory and evaluate all cultural resources on lands under its jurisdiction.

Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (1966) requires that historic

properties be identified and evaluated for their eligibility for listing on the National

Register of Historic Places. Section 110 also stipulates that historic properties be

managed in a way that preserves and protects their values, especially nationally

significant values. Cultural resources, both within and outside of National Park Service
C-19

jurisdiction, that could potentially be affected by actions outlined in this plan were

considered during this planning process.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires that federal agencies

having direct or indirect jurisdiction over undertakings consider the effect of

undertakings on resources. Resources may be either listed in or eligible for listing in the

National Register of Historic Places. Agencies are also required to afford the state

historic preservation officer(s) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

opportunities to comment. The National Park Service will continue to work with the

aforementioned entities to meet the requirements of section 106. As stipulated by the

October 1995 programmatic agreement among the National Conference of State Historic

Preservation Officers, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National

Park Service, the following organizations were invited to participate in the planning

process. Each entity had an opportunity to review and comment on the draft document:

• Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho State Historic Preservation Offices

• Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

The National Park Service will continue to consult with affiliated American Indian tribes.

The NPS also will develop and accomplish its programs in a way that respects the beliefs,

traditions, and other cultural values of the American Indian tribes who have ancestral ties

to the lands encompassed by YNP, GTNP, and the Parkway. The necessity for

consultations with American Indians arises from the historic and current government-togovernment relationship of the federal government with American Indian tribes,

particularly those that are federally recognized (Federal Register 1995, 9250-9255), and

from the related federal trust responsibility to conserve tribal resources. Consultations

with American Indians are also required for compliance with a variety of laws and other

legal entities, such as presidential executive orders, proclamations, and memoranda;

federal regulations; and agency management policies and directives. Examples are:

• The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (1975)

• The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978 and as amended in 1994)

• The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990)

• National Historic Preservation Act (as amended in 1992)

• Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994, entitled “Government-to-Government Relations

With Native American Tribal Governments

• EO 13007 of May 24, 1996, entitled “Indian Sacred Sites.”

Proposed Revisions to NPS Management Policies

The proposed revisions to the Management Policies underscore and reiterate NPS

responsibilities for managing cultural resources within units of the National Park System.

LEGISLATIVE DIRECTION, REGULATIONS, AND POLICY ON

MANAGEMENT OF VISITOR ACTIVITIES

NPS Management Policies address the management of visitor activities in parks:
C-20

The National Park Service will manage visitor use and whenever necessary

regulate the amount and kind, and the time and place, of visitor activities. Any

restrictions will be based on a determination by the superintendent that such

measures are consistent with the park’s enabling legislation and are needed

either to prevent derogation of the values and purposes for which the park was

established or to minimize visitor use conflicts.

The National Park Service will encourage recreational activities that are

consistent with applicable legislation, that promote visitor enjoyment of park

resources through a direct association or relation to those resources, that are

also consistent with the protection of resources, and that are compatible with

other visitor uses.

General regulations addressing aircraft use, off-road bicycling, hang-gliding,

hunting, off-road vehicle use, and snowmobiling require that special

regulations be developed before these uses may be authorized in parks.

(NPS Management Policies 8:1,2)

Snowmobile use is governed by Executive Order 11644 amended by 11989,

“Use of Off-road Vehicles on Public Lands” (42 USC 4321), and in Alaska.

The use of snowmobiles is prohibited except on designated routes and frozen

water surfaces that are used during other seasons by motor vehicles and

motorboats, respectively, or as otherwise specifically provided by federal

statute. Routes and water surfaces may be designated for snowmobile use only

in locations where there will be no significant adverse impacts on the park’s

natural, cultural, or scenic resources and values and in consideration of other

visitor uses. Routes and water surfaces to be designated for snowmobile use

will be identified in special regulations.

(NPS Management Policies 8:5)

Excerpts from proposed revisions to NPS Management Policies

8.1 [Use Of Park] General

Many different types of uses take place in the more than 375 parks that comprise the

national park system. Some of those uses are carried out by the National Park Service,

but many more are carried out by general park visitors, permittees, lessees, and

licensees. The Service has the responsibility to manage all park uses and, when

necessary, regulate their amount, kind, time and place.

The Organic Act, which created the National Park Service in 1916, directs the Service

to conserve park resources “unimpaired” for the enjoyment of future generations. The

1970 National Park System General Authorities Act, as amended, prohibits the Service

from allowing any activities that would cause derogation of the values and purposes

for which the parks have been established. Taken together, these two laws impose on

NPS managers a strict mandate to protect park resources and values.

Providing opportunities for public enjoyment is an important part of the Service’s

mission; but recreational activities and other uses may be allowed in parks only to the

extent they can take place without causing impairment or derogation of a park’s

resources, values, or purposes. The only exception is when an activity that would

cause impairment is directly and specifically mandated by Congress.

The fact that a park use may have an impact does not necessarily mean that it will

impair park resources or values for the enjoyment of future generations. Impacts may

have effects on resources and still be within the limits of the discretionary authority
C-21

conferred by the Organic Act. However, the Service will not knowingly authorize a

park use that would cause adverse impacts unless it has been fully evaluated,

appropriate public involvement has been obtained, and a compelling management need

is present. In those situations, the Service will ensure that any adverse impacts are the

minimum necessary, unavoidable, cannot be further mitigated, and do not constitute

derogation or impairment of park resources and values.

Any discretionary uses allowed by the Service under the Organic Act will be resourcebased, and non-consumptive of resources. Consumptive uses of park resources may be

allowed only when they are:

• Specifically authorized by federal law or treaty rights;

• Specifically authorized pursuant to other existing rights (such as a right retained by

a donor of the land on which the use would occur); or

• Activities, such as fishing or berry picking, which have been found by the

superintendent not to cause adverse impacts to park resources or values.

It is especially important that consumptive uses be continually monitored to ensure that

unanticipated and unacceptable adverse impacts do not occur.

When a use is mandated by law, but causes impairment of park resources or values, the

Service will take appropriate management actions to minimize its adverse effects.

When a use is authorized by law, but not mandated, and may cause impairment of park

resources or values, the Service will mitigate the impacts to the point where they will

not cause either impairment or significant adverse effects; or, if necessary, the Service

will eliminate the activity.

All proposals for park uses will be evaluated for their consistency with applicable

legislation, Executive orders, regulations, and policies, as well as for their actual and

potential effects on park resources and values. They will also be evaluated in terms of

their total costs to the Service, and the public benefits that will be derived. Park

superintendents must continually examine all park uses and allow only those that meet

the criteria listed in section 8.2.

Specific park uses will be guided by the following subsections, and must comply also with

the other chapters of these Management Policies . The regulatory framework for

implementing NPS policies governing use of the parks, and for determining when and

where activities may be allowed, is found in 36 CFR Parts 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12 and 13.

Procedures for implementing or terminating a restriction, condition, public use limit or

closure within a park area are found in 36 CFR 1.5.

(See Park Management 1.4; also see Director’s Order #12)

8.2 Visitor Use

To provide for public enjoyment of the parks, the National Park Service will encourage

activities that

• Are inspirational, educational, or healthful, and otherwise appropriate to the park environment;

• Will foster a continuing appreciation for park resources and values; and

• Will promote enjoyment through a direct association with, or relation to, park resources.

The primary means of fostering and providing activities that meet these criteria will be

the NPS interpretive and educational programs, which are described in detail in
C-22

chapter 7. The Service will also welcome the efforts of private sector organizations

and entities to foster and provide activities that meet these criteria.

The Service will allow other uses that do not meet these criteria, provided they

• Are appropriate to the reason the park was established, and

• Can be sustained without impairing park resources or values.

Unless an activity is mandated by statute, the Service will not allow activities

that

• Cause injury or damage to park resources; or

• Be contrary to the purposes for which the park was established, or

• Unreasonably impair the atmosphere of peace and tranquility maintained in wilderness,

natural, historic, or commemorative locations within the park; or

• Unreasonably interfere with the interpretive, visitor service, or other program activities, or with

the administrative activities of the NPS; or

• Substantially impair NPS concessionaire or contractor operations or services; or

• Present a clear and present danger to public health and safety; or

• Result in significant conflict with other existing uses.

Management controls must be imposed on all park uses to ensure the uses remain

acceptable. If and when a superintendent has a reasonable basis to believe an ongoing or

proposed public use would cause impairment of park resources or values, the

superintendent will either (1) temporarily or permanently close a specific area; or (2)

prohibit a particular use; or (3) otherwise place limitations on the use to ensure that

impairment does not occur.

Any closures or restrictions--other than those imposed by law--will be based on a written

determination by the superintendent that such measures are (1) consistent with the park’s

enabling legislation, other applicable laws, and the NPS policies and procedures; and (2)

are needed either to prevent impairment or derogation of park resources and values, or to

minimize visitor use conflicts. When practicable, such restrictions will be based on the

results of study or research, including (when appropriate) research in the social sciences.

Any restrictions imposed will be fully explained to visitors and the public. Visitors will

be given appropriate information on how to keep adverse impacts to a minimum, and

how to enjoy the safe and lawful use of the parks.

8.2.3.2 Snowmobiles

Snowmobile use is a form of off-road vehicle use governed by Executive Order 11644 (as

amended by Executive Order 11989) and, in Alaska, by provisions of ANILCA (16 USC

3121 and 3170). The use of snowmobiles is prohibited except on designated routes and

frozen water surfaces that are used during other seasons by motor vehicles and

motorboats, respectively, or as otherwise specifically provided by federal statute. NPS

regulations implementing Executive Order 11644, as it applies to snowmobile use, are

found in 36 CFR 2.18. Those regulations stipulate, among other things, that routes and

water surfaces may be designated for snowmobile use only when:

• The use is consistent with a park’s natural, cultural, scenic and esthetic values; and
C-23

• The use is consistent with the park’s management objectives; and

• Safety considerations are satisfactorily addressed; and

• The use will not disturb wildlife or damage park resources; and

• Conflicts with other park uses can be minimized.

NPS administrative use of snowmobiles will be limited to what is necessary to manage

public use of snowmobile routes and areas; to conduct emergency operations; and to

accomplish essential maintenance, construction, and resource protection activities that

cannot be accomplished reasonably by other means.

(See Minimum Requirement 6.3.5, Management Facilities 6.3.10, General Policy 6.4.1)

8.6.5 Access to Private Property

The Park Service will allow access to the private property of adjacent landowners when such

access is required by law. Commercial vehicles will be allowed access only in accordance with

36 CFR 5.6, “Commercial Vehicles.” The Service will also consider allowing access when it

would contribute in a material way to the park’s mission, provided that the access would not

cause impairment or derogation of park resources or values, or the purposes for which the park

was established.

NPS Management Policies also address visitor experience with respect to natural quiet:

The National Park Service will strive to preserve the natural quiet and

the natural sounds associated with the physical and biological resources

of the parks (for example, the sounds of the wind in the trees or of the

waves breaking on the shore, the howl of the wolf, or the call of the

loon). Activities causing excessive or unnecessary unnatural sounds in

and adjacent to parks, including low-altitude aircraft overflights, will be

monitored, and action will be taken to prevent or minimize unnatural

sounds that adversely affect park resources or values or visitors’

enjoyment of them(NPS Management Policies 4:18).

Interpretive media, facilities, programs, and other activities are designed to enhance both

resource protection and visitor enjoyment:

The National Park Service will conduct interpretive programs in all parks to

instill an understanding and appreciation of the value of parks and their

resources; to develop public support for preserving park resources; to

provide the information necessary to ensure the successful adaptation of

visitors to park environments; and to encourage and facilitate appropriate,

safe, minimum-impact use of park resources (NPS Management Policies 7:1).
APPENDIX D

LETTER FROM U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

D-1
D-2
D-3
APPENDIX E

LETTER FROM

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

E-1
E-2
APPENDIX F

ANALYSIS OF ESTIMATED COSTS OF THE WINTER USE

PLAN ALTERNATIVES

F-1

INTRODUCTION

This cost analysis represents an estimate of program and program maintenance costs that

would be associated with each alternative. Its primary value is to illustrate the relative

cost for each alternative as compared to the existing program. The cost summary for

each alternative provides this comparison.

COSTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Initial Costs

All alternatives include the cost of an additional rotary plow to assist with snow removal

on the road between the North Entrance and Cooke City, to supplement spring opening,

and for routine snow plowing within Grand Teton and the Parkway (excepting road

segments which change in different alternatives). In addition all alternatives include the

purchase of search and rescue equipment and replacing substandard, non-winterized

housing. Recycling centers would be built at interior developed areas and weather

stations would be placed at critical, avalanche prone locations. All alternatives include

design, contract administration, and contingency costs for the construction projects,

estimated at the National Park Service (NPS) standard of 35%.

Replacement Costs

The equipment that is proposed for replacement in all alternatives is the new equipment

shown as purchased under the initial costs for each alternative. The replacement

schedule for equipment is the desirable interval based on past performance. Only the

new equipment is shown as being replaced. This underestimates the true cost of

replacing all park winter-related equipment on a desirable schedule.

Annual Costs

The current funding levels include base (Operations of the National Park Service) funds

as well as non-base money and fee demonstration money. The total annual cost of winter

program management, including overhead expenses such as facility maintenance,

utilities, and personnel and support services, was shown in the Draft Environmental

Impact Statement (DEIS) to be approximately $6,480,558 for Fiscal Year 1998 (in YNP).

Incremental cost changes relate to estimates of initial costs and direct field expenses for

implementing programs, as they would occur in each alternative. For Grand Teton and

the Parkway, the comparable winter management budget was about $3,033,000. For

perspective, over the past five years Yellowstone has spent an average of $1,924,400

directly on field-related winter operations. These are funds devoted to snowmobile use

and road grooming, maintaining interior park buildings, visitor and resource protection,

information, planning, and equipment replacement. A portion of Grand Teton’s budget

was allocated for implementation of the Continental Divide Snowmobile Trail (CDST).
F-2

Life Cycle Costs

A 10% surcharge was added to the annual costs for all alternatives to account for the

additional supplies, administrative, and management support costs that the increased

activities would require.

A 25-year period was used to calculate life cycle costs for all elements, except for the

advisory committee. The advisory committee was set at 10 years since all alternatives

that call for use of a committee identify a sunset in about 2008.

COST SUMMARIES FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE

Alternative A: No Action

The Yellowstone winter operation, as it currently exists, has some significant shortfalls.

The no action alternative addresses these shortfalls by identifying the additional facilities,

equipment and staff that are needed to have the current winter operations be effective.

All proposals under the no action alternative are within the scope of the 1990 Winter Use

Plan, or other approved planning documents. These numbers will be updated and revised

as the Yellowstone National Park Business Plan is completed in late 2000.

The cost of current operations for the Continental Divide Snowmobile Trail is included in

alternative A for Grand Teton National Park (GTNP) and the Parkway. No other

additional needs for the current winter program are identified for GTNP and the Parkway,

although additional monitoring costs could be anticipated should this alternative be

selected.

Initial Costs

A warming hut would be built at Norris and four existing warming huts would be

replaced at Canyon, Madison, and two at Old Faithful. An additional 12 housing units

would be built for the additional ranger, maintenance and interpretive staff.

Two additional groomers would be purchased to allow better snow road grooming and

have replacement equipment available when current equipment breaks down. Oversnow

fire engines would be placed at Madison, Canyon, Lake, Grant, East Entrance, and South

Entrance. An oversnow medical transport vehicle (suburban on mat-tracks) would be

placed at Lake to serve the east side of the park, and compliment the existing ambulance

at Old Faithful. Administrative snowcoaches would be purchased and placed at

Mammoth (2), Old Faithful, Lake, and Canyon. The administrative snowmobile fleet

would be augmented with 11 additional snowmobiles (bringing the total up to 115).

Wildlife and sound research would occur to augment existing wildlife work, and to

understand unwanted sound concerns.

See the table at the end of this narrative titled “Enhanced Activities for the No Action

Alternative.”
F-3

Annual Costs

Bison and air quality monitoring would continue. Additional interpretive media and

publications would be produced to enhance the visitor understanding of the winter

season. The additional warming hut would be maintained, as would the 11 additional

snowmobiles, 5 administrative snowcoaches, and 12 new housing units. Ten additional

interpreters are needed to staff warming huts and provide outreach. Three additional

rangers are needed for patrol and winter resource operations. Seven additional

maintenance staff members are needed to accomplish stepped up grooming.

Cost Summary

See alternative A in the attached cost spreadsheets and graphs for YNP. For YNP,

implementing the no action alternative would cost an estimated additional $1,648,700 per

year on an annualized basis as compared to the current program. The estimate includes:

• Initial costs for the additional facilities and equipment, and studies to manage

Yellowstone National Park (YNP) properly in the winter.

• Replacement costs for the additional equipment.

• Annual expenses to staff and to maintain the park adequately.

The costs were developed by projecting expenses over a 25-year period and then

annualized using a discount rate of seven percent. The estimated costs of all alternatives

described below include these initial, replacement, and annual expenses.

See alternative A in the attached cost spreadsheets and graphs for GTNP. For GTNP,

implementing the no action alternative is the nearly same as indicated in the current

budget figure because no additional needs for upgrading facilities or services have been

identified in the existing program. The only indicated additional need is the annualized

cost of two snowmobiles for monitoring and enforcement.

Alternative B

Initial Costs

In keeping with the alternative’s philosophy of providing better visitor services, new

warming huts would be placed at Tower and Norris, and four existing huts would be

replaced (at Canyon, Madison, and Old Faithful). Twenty new housing units would be

provided for additional staff. A maintenance facility and sand storage facility would be

built to support plowing the road from West to Old Faithful. One additional push plow

and one additional rotary plow would be purchased to support plowing the road from

West to Old Faithful (and supplement existing plows). Oversnow fire engines would be

placed at Canyon, Lake, Grant, and East Entrance. The existing Old Faithful oversnow

engine would be moved to South Entrance. The Old Faithful oversnow ambulance would

be moved to Lake, and existing wheeled ambulances and fire trucks would serve

Madison and Old Faithful. Administrative snowcoaches would be purchased and placed

at Mammoth (2), Old Faithful, Lake, and Canyon.
F-4

There would be an initial cost for constructing a separate year-round pathway for the

CDST. This would consist of a 12-foot wide paved pathway, 28 miles long from Moran

to Flagg Ranch estimated at $0.975 million per mile for a total of $27.3 million. Costs

may be higher than unit costs for this type of construction elsewhere in Teton County due

to high slope gradients, river approaches, and river crossings that must be negotiated over

the 28 miles. Design/contract and analysis costs would be in addition to construction, as

would the relocation of any current overhead utilities to the new corridor. Also, two new

warming hut facilities would be constructed and residential facilities would need to be

winterized to house seasonal employees.

Annual Costs

Approximately 6 miles of new snow road would be groomed at Natural Bridge, Gull

Point Drive, and Lake Butte. Since a narrower and less maintained standard is set for

these roads, the cost of grooming was assumed to be for one lane (versus two for the

balance of the snow roads). About 10 miles of additional ski trails would be groomed at

Indian Creek, West Entrance, Canyon, and Madison River Drive. Plowing the road from

West to Old Faithful would add the costs of plowing and sand removal, but subtract costs

of grooming and spring opening. Bison and air quality monitoring would occur, as

would the production of additional interpretive publications and media. The two

additional warming huts would be maintained, as would the maintenance facility, sand

storage facility, administrative snowcoaches, additional snowmobiles, and new housing.

An advisory committee to help with emissions and sound standards would be established

that would require administrative support for 10 years (since the alternative calls for the

committee’s work to be done by 2008-2009).

In YNP an additional 21 interpretation and ranger staff would be used to carry out the

alternative’s goal of increasing interpretive opportunities in and outside the park,

increasing enforcement program in the park, and managing the interim limit on visitor

use. Seven additional maintenance staff would be needed for the plow operation. For

GTNP, an additional six seasonal rangers would be necessary for implementing increased

interpretive programs, management of interim use limits, additional maintenance and

route marking, and providing a presence at the new warming huts. Concurrent with

enhanced interpretive services, additional publications would need to be developed and

produced.

Cost Summary

See alternative B in the attached cost spreadsheets and graphs. For YNP, implementing

alternative B would cost an estimated $2,362,000 more per year on an annualized basis

than in alternative A (considering existing needed facility and service upgrades). For

GTNP, implementing alternative B would cost an estimated $3,484,000 more per year on

an annualized basis than under current management.
F-5

Alternative C

Initial Costs

In keeping with the alternative’s philosophy of providing a wider variety of visitor

services, five new warming huts would be placed at Tower, Norris, and other locations,

and four existing huts would be replaced (at Canyon, Madison, and Old Faithful). Five

new restrooms would be built to provide better visitor service. Twelve new housing units

would be provided for additional staff. A maintenance facility and sand storage facility

would be built to support plowing the road from West to Old Faithful. One additional

push plow and one additional rotary plow would be purchased to support plowing the

road from West to Old Faithful (and supplement existing plows). Oversnow fire engines

would be placed at Canyon, Lake, Grant, and East Entrance. The existing Old Faithful

oversnow engine would be moved to South Entrance. The Old Faithful oversnow

ambulance would be moved to Lake, and existing wheeled ambulances and fire trucks

would serve Madison and Old Faithful. Administrative snowcoaches would be

purchased and placed at Mammoth (2), Old Faithful, Lake, and Canyon.

For GTNP an initial cost would be incurred for the widened highway shoulder for the

CDST. This would be the construction of a six-foot wide lane along existing shoulder for

28-mile distance from Moran to Flagg Ranch, estimated at about $0.487 million per mile

or $13.6 million. Three new warming huts would be constructed, and additional housing

would need to be winterized to accommodate a greater seasonal staff. Two new

groomers would need to be purchased, as well as additional snowmobiles for

administrative purposes. There would be a capital cost for improving the unpaved

portion of the Moose-Wilson Road before the road could be plowed for winter access.

Annual Costs

Approximately 10 miles of new snow road would be groomed at Natural Bridge, Gull

Point Drive, Lake Butte, and near Norris. Since a narrower and less maintained standard

is set for these roads, the cost of grooming was assumed to be for one lane (versus two

for the balance of the snow roads). Since the winter season would be extended by two

weeks from South to West thumb, an additional 22 miles of grooming would occur.

About 20 miles of additional ski trails would be groomed at Indian Creek, West Entrance,

Norris, Madison River Drive, Fountain Flat Road, and Lower Geyser Basin. Plowing the

road from West to Old Faithful would add costs of plowing and sand removal, but

subtract cost of grooming and spring opening. Similarly, late season plowing from

Mammoth to Madison would add the cost of plowing 35 miles for one month (along with

sand removal), but subtract the cost of grooming for a similar length and time. Bison and

air quality monitoring would occur, as would the production of additional interpretive

publications and media. The additional facilities would be maintained.

For YNP an additional 13 interpretation and ranger staff would be used to carry out the

alternative’s goal of increasing partnership interpretive opportunities outside the park and
F-6

strictly enforcing sound standards in the park. Seven additional maintenance staff would

assist with the road plowing.

For GTNP, an additional six seasonal rangers would be necessary for implementing

increased interpretive programs, additional maintenance and route marking, and

providing a presence at the new warming huts. Concurrent with enhanced interpretive

services, additional publications would need to be developed and produced.

Cost Summary

See alternative C in the attached cost spreadsheets and graphs. For YNP, implementing

alternative C would cost an estimated $1,684,000 more per year on an annualized basis

than in alternative A. For GTNP, implementing alternative C would cost an estimated

$1,976,000 more per year on an annualized basis than under current management.

Alternative D

Initial Costs

Alternative D calls for stepped up visitor services and clean and quiet modes of

transportation with an emphasis on additional staff. Twenty housing units would be built

for these staff. Existing, substandard warming huts at Madison, Canyon, and Old

Faithful would be replaced. Oversnow fire engines would be placed at Canyon, Lake,

Grant, Madison, South Entrance, and East Entrance. An oversnow medical transport

vehicle would be placed at Lake. Administrative snowcoaches would be purchased and

placed at Mammoth (2), Old Faithful, Lake, and Canyon. Wildlife and sound research

would occur.

For GTNP, an initial cost would be incurred for widening the highway shoulder for the

CDST. This would be the construction of a six-foot wide lane along existing shoulder for

10-mile distance from Moran to Colter Bay, estimated at about $0.487 million per mile or

$4.87 million. One new warming hut would be constructed, and additional housing for

winter seasonal employees would need to be winterized. Due to changes in grooming

and plowing needs, additional road maintenance machinery would need to be acquired.

The unpaved portion of the Moose-Wilson Road would need to be improved. Colter Bay

facilities would need to be winterized and upgraded to accommodate staging needs at that

location (vice Flagg Ranch).

Annual Costs

Approximately 15 miles of new snow road would be groomed at Mesa Road, Natural

Bridge, Gull Point Drive, Fountain Flats, and Madison River Drive. Since a narrower

and less maintained standard is set for these roads, the cost of grooming was assumed to

be for one lane (versus two for the balance of the snow roads). The East Entrance road

would be closed, eliminating grooming on 27 miles of snow road. The snow road to

Washburn Hot Springs overlook and the North Canyon Rim Drive would be converted

from motorized to nonmotorized travel, subtracting grooming for vehicles and

substituting grooming for skiing on these six miles. Since alternative D calls for even a
F-7

higher level of maintenance on the West to Old Faithful snow road, additional funds are

allocated to this operation. Bison and air quality monitoring would occur, as would the

production of additional interpretive publications and media. The additional facilities

would be maintained.

For YNP, an additional 21 interpretation and ranger staff will be used to carry out the

alternative’s goal of increasing interpretive opportunities in and outside the park,

increasing the enforcement program in the park, and managing the daily limit on visitor

numbers. Seven additional maintenance staff will provide increased grooming services

and fleet maintenance.

For GTNP, an additional six seasonal rangers would be necessary for implementing

increased interpretive programs, additional maintenance and route marking, monitoring

visitor use, and providing a presence at the new warming huts. Concurrent with

enhanced interpretive services, additional publications would need to be developed and

produced.

Cost Summary

See alternative D in the attached cost spreadsheets and graphs. For YNP, implementing

alternative D would cost an estimated $1,916,500 more per year on an annualized basis

than in alternative A. For GTNP, implementing alternative D would cost an estimated

$957,000 more per year on an annualized basis than under current management.

Alternative E

Initial Costs

Alternative E calls for an adaptive approach to winter use planning and management.

The initial costs would be similar to the no action alternative, although a warming hut

would not be placed at Norris. Eight housing units would be built. Existing, substandard

warming huts at Madison, Canyon, and Old Faithful would be replaced. Search and

rescue caches would be placed in several locations. Oversnow fire engines would be

placed at Canyon, Lake, Grant, Madison, South Entrance, and East Entrance. An

oversnow medical transport vehicle would be placed at Lake. Administrative

snowcoaches would be purchased and placed at Mammoth (2), Old Faithful, Lake, and

Canyon. Increased funding for wildlife and sound research is shown to reflect the

information that would be needed under this alternative’s adaptive management

philosophy.

Annual Costs

No changes would occur in snow roads or ski trails, unless scientific studies indicate

closures are warranted. Increased funding for bison monitoring and air quality

monitoring is shown, again reflecting the adaptive management philosophy. An advisory

committee to help with emissions and sound standards would be established that would

require administrative support for about 10 years (since the alternative calls for the
F-8

committee’s work to be done by 2008-2009). For GTNP, the discontinuance of the

CDST and most snowmobiling in the park would result in a net decrease in annual costs.

Cost Summary

See alternative E in the attached cost spreadsheets and graphs. For YNP, implementing

alternative E would cost an estimated $1,735,000 more per year on an annualized basis

than in alternative A. For GTNP, alternative E would cost an estimated $291,000 less per

year on an annualized basis than under current management.

Alternative F

Initial Costs

With the closure of the west and north snow roads in this alternative, a shift in emphasis

would occur to the east and south sides of the park. Warming huts would be placed at

Norris and replaced at Canyon, Fishing Bridge, West Thumb, and Old Faithful and

restrooms added to these areas of the park. Staff would be shifted from West and

Madison to other locations and fifteen existing non-winterized housing units would be

replaced.

Oversnow fire engines would be placed at Canyon, Lake, Grant, and South and East

Entrances. An oversnow medical transport vehicle would be placed at Lake.

Administrative snowcoaches would be purchased and placed at Mammoth (2), Old

Faithful, Lake, and Canyon.

Annual Costs

Approximately 65 miles of snow road would no longer be groomed. With a 2-week

shorter season, the remaining 119 miles of snow road would not be groomed after early

March. Bison monitoring would occur, as would the production of additional interpretive

publications and media. The new facilities would be maintained. This alternative does

not reflect saving utility costs by closing the Madison developed area in the winter,

which would include water and sewer plant operations as well as electricity, fuel oil, and

propane. Permanent staff at Madison would be shifted to other locations in the winter.

The additional 10 interpreters would be used to carry out the alternative’s goal of

increasing interpretive opportunities outside the park.

This alternative for GTNP is essentially the same as alternative E. Additional annual

costs for wildlife/ungulate monitoring would be incurred.

Cost Summary

See alternative F in the attached cost spreadsheets and graphs. For YNP, implementing

alternative F would cost an estimated $580,700 more per year on an annualized basis.

For GTNP, alternative F would cost an estimated $164,000 less per year on an annualized

basis than under current management.
F-9

Alternative G

Initial Costs

Alternative G puts the emphasis on access to Yellowstone via snowcoach. Most of the

initial costs of alternative G are similar to no action, with the exception of the purchase

(and replacement program) of 30 administrative snowcoaches. The administrative

snowmobile fleet would be reduced from 105 to 15, and they would be only used for

emergency functions. These savings are reflected in the reduced replacement and

maintenance costs.

For GTNP one new warming hut would be constructed, and additional housing for winter

seasonal employees would need to be winterized. Due to changes in grooming and

plowing needs, additional road maintenance machinery would need to be acquired. The

unpaved portion of the Moose-Wilson Road would need to be improved. Colter Bay

facilities would need to be winterized and upgraded to accommodate staging needs at that

location (vice Flagg Ranch).

Annual Costs

Bison and air quality monitoring would occur, as would the production of additional

interpretive publications and media. Additional facilities would be maintained. An

additional 15 interpretation staff would be used to carry out the alternative’s goal of

increasing interpretive opportunities in and outside the park.

For GTNP an additional six seasonal rangers would be necessary for implementing

increased interpretive programs, additional maintenance and route marking, and

providing a presence at the new warming huts. Concurrent with enhanced interpretive

services, additional publications would need to be developed and produced.

Cost Summary

See alternative G in the attached cost spreadsheets and graphs. For YNP, implementing

alternative G would cost an estimated $1,882,000 more per year on an annualized basis

than in alternative A. For GTNP, implementing alternative G would cost an estimated

$338,000 more per year on an annualized basis than under current management.
F-10

UNIT COSTS FOR WINTER USE PLANS

List of units that would be applied to the alternatives to determine the incremental cost

difference of action alternatives from the no action alternative. Fiscal Year 99 costs are

used, unless an average is indicated.

Units Unit Cost

Grooming Snow Road /Lane-Mile $15 per lane mile/day for 105 day season; includes P/M, Labor, &

Fuel

Grooming Ski Trail/Mile $35/mile (labor plus equipment)

Plowing/ Lane-Mile $22 per lane mile per day for 170 day season, includes P/M, labor,

fuel, & road sand (three-year average)

Sand Removal in Spring/Mile $48 Per mile per mile includes P/M, labor, & fuel,

Personnel/Year $44,000/year including benefits (based on total park payroll of

$22,068,000 divided by 500 average annual FTE in FY98)

Spring Opening/Mile Three-year average $1552 per mile includes P/M, labor, fuel, and

housing.

Groomer Purchase

Replacement Cycle (years)

Tractor and attachment with trade in. $174,000 - $10,000 trade-in

8 years

Push Plow Purchase

Replacement Cycle (years)

Truck/plow/sander $115,000

17 years

Rotary Plow Purchase

Replacement Cycle (years)

$375,000

25 years

Warming Hut Construction

Annual Ops and Maintenance.

$100 per sq. ft.

$5000 annual cyclic maintenance

Comfort Station Construction

Annual Ops and Maintenance.

$100 per sq. ft.

$5,000 annual cyclic maintenance

Snowmobile Purchase

Replacement Cycle

Annual Ops and Maintenance.

$4,200 per machine ($6,000/machine - $1,800 resale)

three years

$1,030 per machine

Housing Unit Construction

Annual Ops and Maintenance.

$125,000/unit to build based on recent bids for six-plex

construction

$15,000/year cyclic maintenance

Maintenance Facility Construction

Annual Ops and Maintenance.

80x70 ft. $160 per sq. ft.

$10,000 cyclic maintenance

Sand Storage Facility Construction

Annual Ops and Maintenance.

50x 100 ft. $50 per sq. ft.

$1,000/year cyclic maintenance

Garbage Storage (trailers) Purchase

Replacement Cycle

Trailer Replacement $80,000

25 years

Bison Monitoring $50,000/year

Air Quality Monitoring $200,000/year

Wildlife Research $200,000 one time

Advisory Committee Support $150,000/year for 10 years

Sound Research $200,000 one time
F-11

ENHANCED ACTIVITIES FOR THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE IN YNP

The following lists what additional desirable actions would need to be accomplished in

order to operate more effectively in the winter under the no action alternative. These

estimates are being reviewed for preparation of Yellowstone’s Business Plan, which is

due to be completed in late 2000.

Unit Unit cost

Better Avalanche mitigation $25,000 annually. Monitoring, training supplies and materials. Not

limited to any one-road segment.

$15,000 weather (2) stations, initial purchase

Better Grooming $328,000 initial purchase of two groomers. $25,000 annually to

increase grooming frequency on some snow roads

Replace Snowmobiles Sooner Replace snowmobiles on a two-year cycle $6,000 each.

Provide Tracks for Administrative

Snowcoaches

$24,000 initial start-up per unit for tracks.

Annual ops and maintenance. $4,130 (12% of tracks + $1,250 for

vehicle)

Provide more interpretive staff 10 more positions; 5 additional snowmobiles

$81,500/ year for improved interpretive publications and media

Provide more Maintenance Staff Three more fleet maintenance positions

Provide more protection staff Three more positions; six more snowmobiles

Replace push plows sooner 12 years or 150,000 miles

Replace rotary plows sooner 18 years or 10,000 hours

Purchase additional rotary plow $375,000 each

Replace Groomers sooner Seven years or 8,000 hours

Provide better EMS equipment

Fire

Ambulance

SAR

Oversnow fire engines: $200,000 each

Oversnow medical transport vehicle (Suburban): $84,000 each

$19,000 for equipment

Provide better garbage storage Replace trailer 12 years

Provide Recycle Centers 20x30 ft @ $50 per sq. ft

Replace substandard housing Replace 20 housing units

Replace substandard warming huts Replace 4 warming huts

Build Norris Warming Hut 500 sq. ft @ $100 per sq. ft; $5,000 annual cyclic maintenance
F-12

Life Cycle Cost Analysis for YNP

Present Worth

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

 Alternative

A

 Alternative

B

 Alternative

C

 Alternative

D

 Alternative

E

 Alternative

F

 Alternative

G

Cost - Present Worth

Initial Cost Annual Cost Replacement LCC Cost
Final Winter Use Plan

Yellowstone NP

LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS

Presentworth Dollars

Project/Location:

YNP Final Winter Use Plan

Subject: Functional Component Alternative A

Description: Advisory Comm: Notes No Action

Project Life Cycle = 25 Years 10 years

Discount Rate = 7.00%

Present Time = Jun-00

INITIAL COSTS Quantity UM Unit Price Quantity Est. PW

Construction Costs

A. Add. Warming Huts 1 sq ft $100 1 (Norris) 50,000 50,000

B. Add. Comfort Station 1 sq ft $100 __________ 0

C. Add. Housing Unit 1 each $125,000 12 1,500,000 1,500,000

D. Maintenance Facility 1 sq ft $160 __________ 0

E. Sand Storage Facility 1 sq ft $50 __________ 0

F. Purchase Push Plow 1 each $115,000 __________ 0

G. Purchase Rotary Plow 1 each $375,000 1 375,000 375,000

H. Purchase Groomer 1 each $164,000 2 328,000 328,000

I. Purchase SAR Equip 1 each $19,000 1 19,000 19,000

J. Purchase Fire Engine 1 each $200,000 6 1,200,000 1,200,000

K. Purchase Ambulance 1 each $84,000 1 84,000 84,000

L. Purchase Snowcoach Tracks 1 each $24,000 5 120,000 120,000

M. Purchase Snowmobile 1 each $4,200 11 46,200 46,200

N. Purchase Garbage Storage 1 each $80,000 1 80,000 80,000

O. Wildlife Research 1 each $200,000 100,000 100,000

P. Sound Research 1 each $200,000 200,000 200,000

Q. Provide Recycle Centers 1 sq ft $50 5 150,000 150,000

R. Replace Housing 1 each $125,000 20 2,500,000 2,500,000

S. Install Weather Stations 1 each $15,000 2 30,000 30,000

T. Replace Warming Huts 1 sq ft $100 4(Can/2OF/Mad) 400,000 400,000

Design/Contract/Supervision 35% 35% 1,620,500 1,620,500

______________________ _______________ __________ __________ 0

Total Initial Cost 8,802,700

Initial Cost PW Savings (Compared to Alt. A)

REPLACEMENT COST/ SALVAGE VALUE

Description Year PW Factor

A. Replace Groomer 7 0.62274974 2 groomers 328,000 204,261

B. Replace Push Plow 12 0.44401196 0

C. Rotary Plow 18 0.29586392 1 rotary 375,000 110,948

D. Snowmobile 2 0.87343873 11 snowmobiles 46,200 40,352

E. Garbage Storage 25 0.18424918 1 storage trail. 80,000 14,739

F. Snowcoaches 10 0.50834929 5 snowcoaches 120,000 61,001

 0 1 __________ 0

Total Replacement/Salvage Costs 431,301

ANNUAL COSTS

Description Escl. % PWA

A. Groom Snow roads 0.000% 11.6535832 __________ 0

B. Extend Groom Season 0.000% 11.6535832 __________ 0

C. Groom Ski Trail 0.000% 11.6535832 __________ 0

D. Plow Road 0.000% 11.6535832 __________ 0

E. Partial Season Plowing 0.000% 11.6535832 __________ 0

F. Part Season groom deduct 0.000% 11.6535832 __________ 0

G. Remove Sand 0.000% 11.6535832 __________ 0

H. Full Season Groom Deduct 0.000% 11.6535832 __________ 0

I. Spring Open Deduct 0.000% 11.6535832 __________ 0

J. Bison Monitoring 0.000% 11.6535832 50,000 582,679

K. Air Quality Monitoring 0.000% 11.6535832 200,000 2,330,717

L. Add. Interp. Pubs. 0.000% 11.6535832 81,500 949,767

M. Warming Hut Maintenance 0.000% 11.6535832 1 hut 5,000 58,268

N. Comfort Station Maintenance 0.000% 11.6535832 __________ 0

O. Snowmobile Maintenance 0.000% 11.6535832 11snowmobiles 11,341 132,163

P. Advisory Committee Support 0.000% 7.02358154 __________ 0

Q. Maintenance Facility Maintenance 0.000% 11.6535832 __________ 0

R. Sand Storage Facility Maintenance 0.000% 11.6535832 __________ 0

S. Housing Maintenance 0.000% 11.6535832 8 units 120,000 1,398,430

T. Additional Ranger Staff 0.000% 11.6535832 3 for 1/3 yr 45,000 524,411

U. Additional Interpretive Staff 0.000% 11.6535832 10 for 1/3 yr 150,000 1,748,037

V. Additional Maintenance Staff 0.000% 11.6535832 3 for 1/3 yr 45,000 524,411

W. Better Avalanche Control 0.000% 11.6535832 25,000 291,339

X. Better Grooming 0.000% 11.6535832 25,000 291,339

Y. Administrative Snowcoach Maint. 0.000% 11.6535832 5 coaches 20,650 240,646

0

Management/Admin 0.000% 11.6535832 10% mngt/admn 77,849 907,220

0.000% 11.6535832 __________ 0

Total Annual Costs (Present Worth) 9,979,428

Total Life Cycle Costs (Present Worth) 19,213,429

Life Cycle Savings (Compared to Alt. A)

Discounted Payback (Compared to Alt. A) PP Factor

Total Life Cycle Costs (Annualized) 0.08581052 1,648,714 Per Year

Version: 6/4/98 YELLALTS.XLS Spreadsheet 10/10/00
Final Winter Use Plan

Yellowstone NP

LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS

Presentworth Dollars

Project/Location:

YNP Final Winter Use Plan

Subject: Functional Component

Description:

Project Life Cycle =

Discount Rate =

Present Time =

INITIAL COSTS

Construction Costs

A. Add. Warming Huts

B. Add. Comfort Station

C. Add. Housing Unit

D. Maintenance Facility

E. Sand Storage Facility

F. Purchase Push Plow

G. Purchase Rotary Plow

H. Purchase Groomer

I. Purchase SAR Equip

J. Purchase Fire Engine

K. Purchase Ambulance

L. Purchase Snowcoach Tracks

M. Purchase Snowmobile

N. Purchase Garbage Storage

O. Wildlife Research

P. Sound Research

Q. Provide Recycle Centers

R. Replace Housing

S. Install Weather Stations

T. Replace Warming Huts

Design/Contract/Supervision

______________________

Total Initial Cost 

Initial Cost PW Savings (Compared to Alt. A)

REPLACEMENT COST/ SALVAGE VALUE

Description

A. Replace Groomer

B. Replace Push Plow

C. Rotary Plow

D. Snowmobile

E. Garbage Storage

F. Snowcoaches

 

Total Replacement/Salvage Costs

ANNUAL COSTS

Description

A. Groom Snow roads

B. Extend Groom Season

C. Groom Ski Trail

D. Plow Road

E. Partial Season Plowing

F. Part Season groom deduct

G. Remove Sand

H. Full Season Groom Deduct

I. Spring Open Deduct

J. Bison Monitoring

K. Air Quality Monitoring

L. Add. Interp. Pubs.

M. Warming Hut Maintenance

N. Comfort Station Maintenance

O. Snowmobile Maintenance

P. Advisory Committee Support

Q. Maintenance Facility Maintenance

R. Sand Storage Facility Maintenance

S. Housing Maintenance

T. Additional Ranger Staff

U. Additional Interpretive Staff

V. Additional Maintenance Staff

W. Better Avalanche Control

X. Better Grooming

Y. Administrative Snowcoach Maint.

Management/Admin

Total Annual Costs (Present Worth)

Total Life Cycle Costs (Present Worth)

Life Cycle Savings (Compared to Alt. A)

Discounted Payback (Compared to Alt. A)

Total Life Cycle Costs (Annualized)

 Alternative B Alternative C

Notes Preferred Alternative Notes Maximize Opportunities

Quantity Est. PW Quantity Est. PW

2 Norris/Tower 80,000 80,000 5 huts 250,000 250,000

1(Tower) 30,000 30,000 5 restrooms 150,000 150,000

20 2,500,000 2,500,000 12 1,500,000 1,500,000

1 896,000 896,000 1 896,000 896,000

1 250,000 250,000 1 250,000 250,000

1 115,000 115,000 1 115,000 115,000

2 750,000 750,000 2 750,000 750,000

__________ 0 __________ 0

1 19,000 19,000 1 19,000 19,000

4 800,000 800,000 4 800,000 800,000

__________ 0 __________ 0

5 120,000 120,000 5 120,000 120,000

__________ 0 __________ 0

__________ 0 __________ 0

100,000 100,000 __________ 0

200,000 200,000 __________ 0

5 150,000 150,000 5 150,000 150,000

20 2,500,000 2,500,000 20 2,500,000 2,500,000

2 30,000 30,000 2 30,000 30,000

4(Can/2OF/Mad) 400,000 400,000 4 huts 400,000 400,000

35% 2,392,600 2,392,600 35% 2,144,100 2,144,100

__________ 0 __________ 0

11,332,600 10,074,100

(11,332,600) (10,074,100)

0 __________ 0

1 push plow 115,000 51,061 1 push plow 115,000 51,061

2 rotarys 375,000 110,948 2 rotarys 375,000 110,948

0 __________ 0

- 2 storage trail -160,000 (29,479) - 2 storage trail -160,000 (29,479)

5 snowcoaches 120,000 61,001 5 snowcoaches 120,000 61,001

__________ 0 __________ 0

193,531 193,531

6 mi add-1 lane 9,450 110,126 10 mi add(1 ln) 15,750 183,544

0 22 mi.add-South 9,240 107,679

10 miles add. 350 4,079 20 miles add. 700 8,158

30 mi plowed 224,300 2,613,899 30 miles plowed 224,300 2,613,899

0 35 miles plowed 46,200 538,396

0 sub 35 mi -31,500 (367,088)

30 mi sand rem 1,440 16,781 65 mi sand rem 3,120 36,359

subtract 30 mi -94,500 (1,101,264) subtract 30 mi -94,500 (1,101,264)

subtract 30 mi -46,560 (542,591) subtract 30 mi -46,560 (542,591)

50,000 582,679 0

200,000 2,330,717 0

81,500 949,767 81,500 949,767

2 huts 10,000 116,536 5 huts 25,000 291,340

1 restroom 5,000 58,268 5 restrooms 25,000 291,340

0 __________ 0

10 year life 150,000 1,053,537 __________ 0

1 facility 10,000 116,536 1 facility 10,000 116,536

1 facility 1,000 11,654 1 facility 1,000 11,654

18 units 270,000 3,146,467 10 units 150,000 1,748,037

6 for 1/3 yr 90,000 1,048,822 3 for 1/3 yr 45,000 524,411

15 for 1/3 yr 225,000 2,622,056 10 for 1/3 yr 150,000 1,748,037

3 for 1/3 yr 45,000 524,411 3 for 1/3 yr 45,000 524,411

25,000 291,340 25,000 291,340

25,000 291,340 25,000 291,340

5 coaches 20,650 240,646 5 coaches 20,650 240,646

10% mngt/admn 130,263 1,518,030 10% mngt/admn 72,990 850,595

__________ 0 __________ 0

16,003,837 9,356,545

27,529,968 19,624,176

(27,529,968) (19,624,176)

-8.15 Years -12.29 Years

2,362,361 Per Year 1,683,961 Per Year

Version: 6/4/98 YELLALTS.XLS Spreadsheet 10/10/00
Final Winter Use Plan

Yellowstone NP

LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS

Presentworth Dollars

Project/Location:

YNP Final Winter Use Plan

Subject: Functional Component

Description:

Project Life Cycle =

Discount Rate =

Present Time =

INITIAL COSTS

Construction Costs

A. Add. Warming Huts

B. Add. Comfort Station

C. Add. Housing Unit

D. Maintenance Facility

E. Sand Storage Facility

F. Purchase Push Plow

G. Purchase Rotary Plow

H. Purchase Groomer

I. Purchase SAR Equip

J. Purchase Fire Engine

K. Purchase Ambulance

L. Purchase Snowcoach Tracks

M. Purchase Snowmobile

N. Purchase Garbage Storage

O. Wildlife Research

P. Sound Research

Q. Provide Recycle Centers

R. Replace Housing

S. Install Weather Stations

T. Replace Warming Huts

Design/Contract/Supervision

______________________

Total Initial Cost 

Initial Cost PW Savings (Compared to Alt. A)

REPLACEMENT COST/ SALVAGE VALUE

Description

A. Replace Groomer

B. Replace Push Plow

C. Rotary Plow

D. Snowmobile

E. Garbage Storage

F. Snowcoaches

 

Total Replacement/Salvage Costs

ANNUAL COSTS

Description

A. Groom Snow roads

B. Extend Groom Season

C. Groom Ski Trail

D. Plow Road

E. Partial Season Plowing

F. Part Season groom deduct

G. Remove Sand

H. Full Season Groom Deduct

I. Spring Open Deduct

J. Bison Monitoring

K. Air Quality Monitoring

L. Add. Interp. Pubs.

M. Warming Hut Maintenance

N. Comfort Station Maintenance

O. Snowmobile Maintenance

P. Advisory Committee Support

Q. Maintenance Facility Maintenance

R. Sand Storage Facility Maintenance

S. Housing Maintenance

T. Additional Ranger Staff

U. Additional Interpretive Staff

V. Additional Maintenance Staff

W. Better Avalanche Control

X. Better Grooming

Y. Administrative Snowcoach Maint.

Management/Admin

Total Annual Costs (Present Worth)

Total Life Cycle Costs (Present Worth)

Life Cycle Savings (Compared to Alt. A)

Discounted Payback (Compared to Alt. A)

Total Life Cycle Costs (Annualized)

 Alternative D Alternative E

Notes Clean/Quiet Modes of Travel Notes Adaptive Management

Quantity Est. PW Quantity Est. PW

__________ 0 __________ 0

__________ 0 __________ 0

20 2,500,000 2,500,000 8 1,000,000 1,000,000

__________ 0 __________ 0

__________ 0 __________ 0

__________ 0 __________ 0

1 375,000 375,000 1 375,000 375,000

__________ 0 2 328,000 328,000

1 19,000 19,000 1 19,000 19,000

6 1,200,000 1,200,000 6 1,200,000 1,200,000

1 84,000 84,000 1 84,000 84,000

5 120,000 120,000 5 120,000 120,000

11 46,200 46,200 11 46,200 46,200

1 80,000 80,000 1 80,000 80,000

100,000 100,000 200,000 200,000

200,000 200,000 300,000 300,000

5 150,000 150,000 5 150,000 150,000

20 2,500,000 2,500,000 20 2,500,000 2,500,000

2 30,000 30,000 2 30,000 30,000

4 huts 400,000 400,000 4(Can/2OF/Mad) 400,000 400,000

35% 1,953,000 1,953,000 35% 1,428,000 1,428,000

__________ 0 __________ 0

9,757,200 8,260,200

(9,757,200) 3,072,400

__________ 0 2 groomers 328,000 204,261

__________ 0 __________ 0

1 rotary 375,000 110,948 1 rotary 375,000 110,948

11 snowmobiles 46,200 40,352 11 snowmobiles 46,200 40,352

1 storage trail. 80,000 14,739 1 storage trail. 80,000 14,739

5 snowcoaches 120,000 61,001 5 snowcoaches 120,000 61,001

__________ 0 __________ 0

227,040 431,301

15 mi add-1 lane 23,625 275,316 __________ 0

__________ 0 __________ 0

6 miles add. 210 2,447 0

__________ 0 __________ 0

__________ 0 __________ 0

__________ 0 __________ 0

__________ 0 __________ 0

subtract 33 miles -103,950 (1,211,390) __________ 0

__________ 0 __________ 0

50,000 582,679 100,000 1,165,358

200,000 2,330,717 300,000 3,496,075

81,500 949,767 81,500 949,767

__________ 0 __________ 0

__________ 0 __________ 0

11 snowmobiles 11,341 132,163 11 snowmobiles 11,341 132,163

__________ 0 10 year life 150,000 1,053,537

__________ 0 0

__________ 0 __________ 0

18 units 270,000 3,146,467 __________ 0

6 for 1/3 yr 90,000 1,048,822 3 for 1/3 yr 45,000 524,411

15 for 1/3 yr 225,000 2,622,056 10 for 1/3 yr 150,000 1,748,037

3 for 1/3 yr 45,000 524,411 3 for 1/3 yr 45,000 524,411

__________ 0 25,000 291,340

grm W-OF better 50,000 582,679 25,000 291,340

5 coaches 20,650 240,646 5 coaches 20,650 240,646

10% mngt/admn 96,338 1,122,678 10% mngt/admn 95,349 1,111,159

__________ 0 __________ 0

12,349,460 11,528,245

22,333,700 20,219,746

(22,333,700) 7,310,222

-9.04 Years 22.71 Years

1,916,466 Per Year 1,735,067 Per Year

Version: 6/4/98 YELLALTS.XLS Spreadsheet 10/10/00
Final Winter Use Plan

Yellowstone NP

LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS

Presentworth Dollars

Project/Location:

YNP Final Winter Use Plan

Subject: Functional Component

Description:

Project Life Cycle =

Discount Rate =

Present Time =

INITIAL COSTS

Construction Costs

A. Add. Warming Huts

B. Add. Comfort Station

C. Add. Housing Unit

D. Maintenance Facility

E. Sand Storage Facility

F. Purchase Push Plow

G. Purchase Rotary Plow

H. Purchase Groomer

I. Purchase SAR Equip

J. Purchase Fire Engine

K. Purchase Ambulance

L. Purchase Snowcoach Tracks

M. Purchase Snowmobile

N. Purchase Garbage Storage

O. Wildlife Research

P. Sound Research

Q. Provide Recycle Centers

R. Replace Housing

S. Install Weather Stations

T. Replace Warming Huts

Design/Contract/Supervision

______________________

Total Initial Cost 

Initial Cost PW Savings (Compared to Alt. A)

REPLACEMENT COST/ SALVAGE VALUE

Description

A. Replace Groomer

B. Replace Push Plow

C. Rotary Plow

D. Snowmobile

E. Garbage Storage

F. Snowcoaches

 

Total Replacement/Salvage Costs

ANNUAL COSTS

Description

A. Groom Snow roads

B. Extend Groom Season

C. Groom Ski Trail

D. Plow Road

E. Partial Season Plowing

F. Part Season groom deduct

G. Remove Sand

H. Full Season Groom Deduct

I. Spring Open Deduct

J. Bison Monitoring

K. Air Quality Monitoring

L. Add. Interp. Pubs.

M. Warming Hut Maintenance

N. Comfort Station Maintenance

O. Snowmobile Maintenance

P. Advisory Committee Support

Q. Maintenance Facility Maintenance

R. Sand Storage Facility Maintenance

S. Housing Maintenance

T. Additional Ranger Staff

U. Additional Interpretive Staff

V. Additional Maintenance Staff

W. Better Avalanche Control

X. Better Grooming

Y. Administrative Snowcoach Maint.

Management/Admin

Total Annual Costs (Present Worth)

Total Life Cycle Costs (Present Worth)

Life Cycle Savings (Compared to Alt. A)

Discounted Payback (Compared to Alt. A)

Total Life Cycle Costs (Annualized)

 Alternative F Alternative G

Notes Maximize Wildlife Protection Notes Snowcoach Only

Quantity Est. PW Quantity Est. PW

1 (Norris) 50,000 50,000 1 (Norris) 50,000 50,000

5 restrooms 150,000 150,000 __________ 0

__________ 0 14 1,750,000 1,750,000

__________ 0 __________ 0

__________ 0 __________ 0

__________ 0 0

1 375,000 375,000 1 375,000 375,000

__________ 0 2 328,000 328,000

1 19,000 19,000 1 19,000 19,000

5 1,000,000 1,000,000 6 1,200,000 1,200,000

1 84,000 84,000 1 84,000 84,000

5 120,000 120,000 30 720,000 720,000

__________ 0 __________ 0

__________ 0 1 80,000 80,000

100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000

__________ 0 200,000 200,000

5 150,000 150,000 5 150,000 150,000

15 1,875,000 1,875,000 20 2,500,000 2,500,000

2 30,000 30,000 2 30,000 30,000

4(Can/OF/WT/FB) 400,000 400,000 4 huts 400,000 400,000

35% 929,250 929,250 35% 1,708,000 1,708,000

__________ 0 __________ 0

5,282,250 9,694,000

4,791,850 63,200

__________ 0 2 groomers 328,000 204,261

__________ 0 0

1 rotary 375,000 110,948 1 rotary 375,000 110,948

__________ 0 -80 snowmobiles -336,000 (293,475)

__________ 0 1 storage trailer 80,000 14,739

5 snowcoaches 120,000 61,001 30 snowcoaches 720,000 366,011

__________ 0 __________ 0

171,949 402,484

__________ 0 __________ 0

__________ 0 184 miles-2 wk 44,940 523,712

__________ 0 6 miles add. 210 2,447

__________ 0 __________ 0

__________ 0 __________ 0

-119 mi/2 wks -49,980 (582,446) __________ 0

__________ 0 __________ 0

subtract 65 miles -204,750 (2,386,071) __________ 0

__________ 0 __________ 0

50,000 582,679 50,000 582,679

__________ 0 200,000 2,330,717

81,500 949,767 81,500 949,767

1 5,000 58,268 1 5,000 58,268

5 25,000 291,340 __________ 0

__________ 0 subtract 80 -82,480 (961,188)

__________ 0 __________ 0

__________ 0 __________ 0

__________ 0 __________ 0

__________ 0 12 units 180,000 2,097,645

__________ 0 0

10 for 1/3 yr 150,000 1,748,037 15 for 1/3 yr 225,000 2,622,056

__________ 0 3 for 1/3 yr 45,000 524,411

25,000 291,340 25,000 291,340

__________ 0 25,000 291,340

5 coaches 20,650 240,646 30 coaches 123,900 1,443,879

__________ 0 __________ 0

10% mngt/admn 10,242 119,356 10% mngt/admn 92,307 1,075,707

__________ 0 __________ 0

1,312,916 11,832,780

6,767,115 21,929,264

12,857,061 404,436

7.63 Years 331.06 Years

580,690 Per Year 1,881,762 Per Year

Version: 6/4/98 YELLALTS.XLS Spreadsheet 10/10/00
F-13

Projected Annualized Cost of 

Final Yellowstone Winter Plan Alternatives

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G
Grand Teton National Park

and JDR,Jr., Memorial Parkway

LCC_R2.xls

LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS

PRESENT WORTH

$37,948,000

$19,866,800

$10,435,500

$0 $0

$2,657,520

$3,009,707

$0

$153,804

$233,696

$8,400 $3,861,000

$26,406 ($154,558)

($3,241,346) ($1,767,168)

$482,414

$233,696

$0

($144,371) ($144,371)

(10,000,000)

(5,000,000)

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

35,000,000

40,000,000

45,000,000

 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G

ALTERNATIVES

Initial Cost Annual Cost Replacement
Grand Teton National Park 

and 

JDR, Jr. Memorial Parkway

LCC_R2.xls

LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS

PRESENT WORTH

(10,000,000)

(5,000,000)

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

35,000,000

40,000,000

45,000,000

 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G

Initial Cost Annual Cost Replacement LCC Cost
Grand Teton National Park

and 

JDR,Jr., Memorial Parkway

10/10/00 excel bullshit?

Projected Annualized Cost of GTNP and JDRMP Winter Plan Alternatives

($500,000)

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G
Winter Use Plan

GTNP and JDRMP

LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS

Presentworth Dollars

Project/Location:

GTNP and the Parkway

Subject: Functional Component Alternative A

Description: Advisory Comm: Notes No Action

Project Life Cycle = 25 Years 10 years

Discount Rate = 7.00%

Present Time = Jun-99

INITIAL COSTS Quantity UM Unit Price Quantity Est. PW

Construction Costs

A. Add. Warming Huts 1 sq ft $100 0

B. Add. Comfort Station 1 sq ft $100 0

C. Winterize Housing Unit 1 each $10,000 0

F. Purchase Push Plow 1 each $115,000 0

G. Purchase Rotary Plow 1 each $375,000 0

H. Purchase D-7 Dozer 1 each $400,000 0

I. Purchase Grader/tractor 1 each $225,000 0

J. Purchase Groomer 1 each $142,000 0

M. Purchase Ambulance 1 each $84,000 0

O. Purchase Snowmobile 1 each $4,200 2 8,400 8,400

S. Provide Recycle Centers 1 sq ft $50 0

W. Construct Yr-Rnd Pathway 1 mile $1,000,000

X. CDSTon widened Shoulder 1 mile $150,000

Y. Improve Moos-Wils Rd 1 each $1,000,000

Z. Winter Imprvmt @ Colter 1 each $2,000,000

Design/Contract/Supervision 35% 35% 0 0

______________________ _______________ __________ __________ 0

Total Initial Cost 8,400

Initial Cost PW Savings (Compared to Alt. A)

REPLACEMENT COST/ SALVAGE VALUE

Description Year PW Factor

A. Replace Groomer 10 0.508349292 0

B. Replace Push Plow 2 0.903492046 0

C. Rotary Plow 11 0.475092796 0

D. Snowmobile 2 0.873438728 0

G. Loader 15 0.36244602 0

H. Grader 20 0.258419003 0

I. Dozer 20 0.258419003 0

 0 1 __________ 0

Total Replacement/Salvage Costs 0

ANNUAL COSTS

Description Escl. % PWA

A. Groom Motor Snow routes 0.000% 11.65358318 2.1 gr M rte 0

B. Groom Motor Snow trails 0.000% 11.653583 33.9 gr M tr 0

C. Mark/Admin Ungrm. Motor. trails 0.000% 11.653583 35.6 ungr M tr

D. Groom Motor tr deduct 0.000% 11.65358318 0

E. Groom Ski Trail 0.000% 11.65358318 0 gr NM tr 0

F. Mark/Admin Ungrm. NM. trails 0.000% 11.653583 26.4 NM tr 0

G. Plow Road 0.000% 11.65358318 100.1 pl rd 0

J. Remove Sand 0.000% 11.65358318 0

K. Full Season Groom Deduct 0.000% 11.65358318 0

L. Spring Open 0.000% 11.65358318 0

M. Ungulate Monitoring 0.000% 11.65358318 0

N. Air Quality Monitoring 0.000% 11.65358318 0

O. Add. Interp. Pubs. 0.000% 11.65358318 0

P. Warming Hut Maintenance 0.000% 11.65358318 0

Q. Comfort Station Maintenance 0.000% 11.65358318 0

R. Snowmobile Maintenance 0.000% 11.65358318 2 2,060 24,006

S. Advisory Committee Support 0.000% 7.023581541 0

W. Additional Ranger Staff 0.000% 11.65358318 0

X. Additional Interpretive Staff 0.000% 11.65358318 0

Y. Better Grooming 0.000% 11.65358318 0

__________ 0

Management/Admin 0.000% 11.65358318 10% mgt/adm 206 2,400

0.000% 11.65358318 __________ 0

Total Annual Costs (Present Worth) 26,406

Total Life Cycle Costs (Present Worth) 34,806

Life Cycle Savings (Compared to Alt. A)

Discounted Payback (Compared to Alt. A) PP Factor

Total Life Cycle Costs (Annualized) 0.085810517 2,987 Per Year

Version: 6/4/98 GTALTC~1.XLS Spreadsheet 10/10/00
Winter Use Plan

GTNP and JDRMP

LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS

Presentworth Dollars

Project/Location:

GTNP and the Parkway

Subject: Functional Component

Description:

Project Life Cycle =

Discount Rate =

Present Time =

INITIAL COSTS

Construction Costs

A. Add. Warming Huts

B. Add. Comfort Station

C. Winterize Housing Unit

F. Purchase Push Plow

G. Purchase Rotary Plow

H. Purchase D-7 Dozer

I. Purchase Grader/tractor

J. Purchase Groomer

M. Purchase Ambulance

O. Purchase Snowmobile

S. Provide Recycle Centers

W. Construct Yr-Rnd Pathway

X. CDSTon widened Shoulder

Y. Improve Moos-Wils Rd 

Z. Winter Imprvmt @ Colter

Design/Contract/Supervision

______________________

Total Initial Cost 

Initial Cost PW Savings (Compared to Alt. A)

REPLACEMENT COST/ SALVAGE VALUE

Description

A. Replace Groomer

B. Replace Push Plow

C. Rotary Plow

D. Snowmobile

G. Loader

H. Grader

I. Dozer

 

Total Replacement/Salvage Costs

ANNUAL COSTS

Description

A. Groom Motor Snow routes

B. Groom Motor Snow trails

C. Mark/Admin Ungrm. Motor. trails

D. Groom Motor tr deduct

E. Groom Ski Trail

F. Mark/Admin Ungrm. NM. trails

G. Plow Road

J. Remove Sand

K. Full Season Groom Deduct

L. Spring Open

M. Ungulate Monitoring

N. Air Quality Monitoring

O. Add. Interp. Pubs.

P. Warming Hut Maintenance

Q. Comfort Station Maintenance

R. Snowmobile Maintenance

S. Advisory Committee Support

W. Additional Ranger Staff

X. Additional Interpretive Staff

Y. Better Grooming

Management/Admin

Total Annual Costs (Present Worth)

Total Life Cycle Costs (Present Worth)

Life Cycle Savings (Compared to Alt. A)

Discounted Payback (Compared to Alt. A)

Total Life Cycle Costs (Annualized)

 Alternative B Alternative C

Notes Preferred Alternative Notes Maximize Opportunities

Quantity Est. PW Quantity Est. PW

2 Signal/Jenny 80,000 80,000 3 huts 120,000 120,000

0 0

4 winterize 40,000 40,000 5 winterize 50,000 50,000

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 2 new groomer 284,000 284,000

0 0

0 2 10,800 10,800

0 0

Pathway $28,000,000 28,000,000 0

0 28mi 13,600,000 13,600,000

Mse-Wils Impr 1000000 1,000,000

35% 9,828,000 9,828,000 35% 4,802,000 4,802,000

__________ 0 __________ 0

37,948,000 19,866,800

(37,948,000) (19,866,800)

0 2 groomers 284,000 144,371

0 0

0 0

0 2 snomobes 10,800 9,433

0 0

0

0 0

__________ 0 __________ 0

0 153,804

same 0 same 0

same 0 "+30.5 gr M tr 86,468 1,007,662

"-24.3 ungr M -10,000 (116,536) "-11.6 ungr M tr -4,774 (55,634)

0 0

same 0 "+4.0 gr NM tr 1,872 21,816

"+6.5 NM tr 2,632 30,672 "+2 NM tr 1,000 11,654

same 0 "+4 pl rd 29,920 348,675

1,440 16,781 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

mon Flagg 100,000 1,165,358 0

Publications 10,000 116,536 Publications 10,000 116,536

2 huts 10,000 116,536 3 huts 15,000 174,804

0 0

0 2 2,060 24,006

0 0

4 for 1/3 yr 60,000 699,215 3 for 1/3 yr 45,000 524,411

2 for 1/3 yr 30,000 349,607 3 for 1/3 yr 45,000 524,411

8mi Grassy 3,240 37,758 8mi Grassy 3,240 37,758

__________ __________

10% mgt/adm 20,731 241,592 10% mgt/adm 23,479 273,609

__________ 0 __________ 0

2,657,520 3,009,707

40,605,520 23,030,311

(40,605,520) (23,030,311)

-166.41 Years -73.18 Years

3,484,381 Per Year 1,976,243 Per Year

Version: 6/4/98 GTALTC~1.XLS Spreadsheet 10/10/00
Winter Use Plan

GTNP and JDRMP

LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS

Presentworth Dollars

Project/Location:

GTNP and the Parkway

Subject: Functional Component

Description:

Project Life Cycle =

Discount Rate =

Present Time =

INITIAL COSTS

Construction Costs

A. Add. Warming Huts

B. Add. Comfort Station

C. Winterize Housing Unit

F. Purchase Push Plow

G. Purchase Rotary Plow

H. Purchase D-7 Dozer

I. Purchase Grader/tractor

J. Purchase Groomer

M. Purchase Ambulance

O. Purchase Snowmobile

S. Provide Recycle Centers

W. Construct Yr-Rnd Pathway

X. CDSTon widened Shoulder

Y. Improve Moos-Wils Rd 

Z. Winter Imprvmt @ Colter

Design/Contract/Supervision

______________________

Total Initial Cost 

Initial Cost PW Savings (Compared to Alt. A)

REPLACEMENT COST/ SALVAGE VALUE

Description

A. Replace Groomer

B. Replace Push Plow

C. Rotary Plow

D. Snowmobile

G. Loader

H. Grader

I. Dozer

 

Total Replacement/Salvage Costs

ANNUAL COSTS

Description

A. Groom Motor Snow routes

B. Groom Motor Snow trails

C. Mark/Admin Ungrm. Motor. trails

D. Groom Motor tr deduct

E. Groom Ski Trail

F. Mark/Admin Ungrm. NM. trails

G. Plow Road

J. Remove Sand

K. Full Season Groom Deduct

L. Spring Open

M. Ungulate Monitoring

N. Air Quality Monitoring

O. Add. Interp. Pubs.

P. Warming Hut Maintenance

Q. Comfort Station Maintenance

R. Snowmobile Maintenance

S. Advisory Committee Support

W. Additional Ranger Staff

X. Additional Interpretive Staff

Y. Better Grooming

Management/Admin

Total Annual Costs (Present Worth)

Total Life Cycle Costs (Present Worth)

Life Cycle Savings (Compared to Alt. A)

Discounted Payback (Compared to Alt. A)

Total Life Cycle Costs (Annualized)

 Alternative D Alternative E

Notes Clean/Quiet Modes of Travel Notes Adaptive Management

Quantity Est. PW Quantity Est. PW

1 (Jenny) 40,000 40,000 0

0 0

4 winterize 40,000 40,000 0

0 0

0 0

1 new dozer 400,000 400,000 0

1grader/trac 225,000 225,000 0

1 new groomer 142,000 142,000 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

8 mi 4,870,000 4,870,000

Mse-Wils Impr 1,000,000 1,000,000

Colter Imprvmt 2,000,000 2,000,000

35% 1,718,500 1,718,500 35% 0 0

__________ 0 __________ 0

10,435,500 0

(10,435,500) 0

1 groomer 142,000 72,185 minus 2 groom -284,000 (144,371)

__________ 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

1grader/trac 225,000 58,144

1 dozer 400,000 103,367

__________ 0 __________ 0

233,696 (144,371)

"+18.2 grM rt 124,740 1,453,668 same 0

"- 21gr M tr -59,535 (693,796) "-26 gr M tr -73,710 (858,986)

"-35.6 ungr M -14,650 (170,725) "-35.6 ungr M -14,650 (170,725)

0 0

same 0 same 0

"+10.7 NM tr 4,334 50,507 "+8.6 NM tr 3,483 40,589

"-21 pl rd -157,080 (1,830,545) "-5.7 pl rd -51,744 (603,003)

no sand rmvl -1,008 (11,747) 0

0 no grm CDST -116,235 (1,354,554)

21 spring pl 32,592 379,814 0

0 0

0 0

Publications 10,000 116,536 0

1 hut 5,000 58,268 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

3 for 1/3 yr 45,000 524,411 0

3 for 1/3 yr 45,000 524,411 0

8mi Grassy 3,240 37,758 0

__________ __________

10% mgt/adm 3,763 43,855 10% mgt/adm -25,286 (294,668)

__________ 0 __________ 0

482,414 (3,241,346)

11,151,610 (3,385,717)

(11,151,610) 43,991,237

-169.82 Years 0.00 Years

956,925 Per Year (290,530) Per Year

Version: 6/4/98 GTALTC~1.XLS Spreadsheet 10/10/00
Winter Use Plan

GTNP and JDRMP

LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS

Presentworth Dollars

Project/Location:

GTNP and the Parkway

Subject: Functional Component

Description:

Project Life Cycle =

Discount Rate =

Present Time =

INITIAL COSTS

Construction Costs

A. Add. Warming Huts

B. Add. Comfort Station

C. Winterize Housing Unit

F. Purchase Push Plow

G. Purchase Rotary Plow

H. Purchase D-7 Dozer

I. Purchase Grader/tractor

J. Purchase Groomer

M. Purchase Ambulance

O. Purchase Snowmobile

S. Provide Recycle Centers

W. Construct Yr-Rnd Pathway

X. CDSTon widened Shoulder

Y. Improve Moos-Wils Rd 

Z. Winter Imprvmt @ Colter

Design/Contract/Supervision

______________________

Total Initial Cost 

Initial Cost PW Savings (Compared to Alt. A)

REPLACEMENT COST/ SALVAGE VALUE

Description

A. Replace Groomer

B. Replace Push Plow

C. Rotary Plow

D. Snowmobile

G. Loader

H. Grader

I. Dozer

 

Total Replacement/Salvage Costs

ANNUAL COSTS

Description

A. Groom Motor Snow routes

B. Groom Motor Snow trails

C. Mark/Admin Ungrm. Motor. trails

D. Groom Motor tr deduct

E. Groom Ski Trail

F. Mark/Admin Ungrm. NM. trails

G. Plow Road

J. Remove Sand

K. Full Season Groom Deduct

L. Spring Open

M. Ungulate Monitoring

N. Air Quality Monitoring

O. Add. Interp. Pubs.

P. Warming Hut Maintenance

Q. Comfort Station Maintenance

R. Snowmobile Maintenance

S. Advisory Committee Support

W. Additional Ranger Staff

X. Additional Interpretive Staff

Y. Better Grooming

Management/Admin

Total Annual Costs (Present Worth)

Total Life Cycle Costs (Present Worth)

Life Cycle Savings (Compared to Alt. A)

Discounted Payback (Compared to Alt. A)

Total Life Cycle Costs (Annualized)

 Alternative F Alternative G

Notes Maximize Wildlife Protection Notes Snowcoach Only

Quantity Est. PW Quantity Est. PW

0 1 (Jenny) 40,000 40,000

0 0

0 4 Winterize 40,000 40,000

0 0

0 0

0 1 new dozer 400,000 400,000

0 1grader/trac 225,000 225,000

0 1 new groomer 142,000 142,000

0 0

0 0

0 0

Mse-Wils Impr 1,000,000 1,000,000

Colter Imprvmt 2,000,000 2,000,000

35% 0 0 35% 14,000 14,000

__________ 0 __________ 0

0 3,861,000

0 6,574,500

minus 2 groom -284,000 (144,371) 1 groomer 142,000 72,185

__________ 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

Grader 225,000 58,144

Dozer 400,000 103,367

__________ 0 __________ 0

(144,371) 233,696

same 0 18.2 grM rt2 124,740 1,453,668

"-26 gr M tr -73,710 (858,986) "-33.9 gr M tr -96,106 (1,119,979)

"-35.6 ungr M -14,650 (170,725) "-35.6 ungr M -14,650 (170,725)

0 0

same 0 same 0

"+8.6 NM tr 3,483 40,589 "+11 NM tr 4,455 51,917

"-5.7 pl rd -51,744 (603,003) "-21 pl rd -157,080 (1,830,545)

0 no sand rmvl -1,008 (11,747)

no grm CDST -116,235 (1,354,554) 0

0 21 spring pl 32,592 379,814

monitor wldlf 15,000 174,804 0

mon Flagg 100,000 1,165,358 0

0 0

0 1 hut 5,000 58,268

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 3 for 1/3 yr 45,000 524,411

0 3 for 1/3 yr 45,000 524,411

0 0

__________ 0 __________ 0

10% mgt/adm -13,786 (160,652) 10% mgt/adm -1,206 (14,051)

__________ 0 __________ 0

(1,767,168) (154,558)

(1,911,539) 3,940,138

24,941,850 7,211,472

0.00 Years 70.64 Years

(164,030) Per Year 338,105 Per Year

Version: 6/4/98 GTALTC~1.XLS Spreadsheet 10/10/00
APPENDIX G

SCENARIOS OF HOW USE MIGHT CHANGE BY ALTERNATIVE

WITHIN THE THREE PARK UNITS

INDEX: VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED BY ROAD SEGMENT FOR

EACH SCENARIO

SCENARIOS OF HOW USE MIGHT CHANGE BY ALTERNATIVE ON

ADJACENT LANDS

AND

AVAILABLE INFORMATION TO ASSESS EFFECTS OF WINTER USE

ALTERNATIVES ON ADJACENT NATIONAL FOREST LANDS

G-1

WINTER MOTORIZED USE SCENARIOS FOR YELLOWSTONE AND GRAND

TETON NATIONAL PARKS AND THE JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR.,

MEMORIAL PARKWAY

Rationale

In comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) cooperating agencies and

others supported the inclusion of use limitations. Specified use limits were not part of the DEIS.

They expressed concern about how the alternatives (particularly alternative B – the DEIS

preferred alternative) would affect economic stability or growth in local communities. They also

expressed concern about how displaced snowmobile use would affect lands adjacent to the parks.

The DEIS included no quantitative predictions about use redistribution, although it did discuss

the subject qualitatively. The economic analyst was unwilling to provide any such predictions,

basing the impact estimates only on the loss of snowmobile business by alternative to the regional

(17-county) and three-state economies.

In its comments on the DEIS, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated alternative

G as its environmentally preferred alternative. EPA stated that without specifics on adaptive

management and limitations on oversnow vehicle use, none of the other a it did discuss the

subject qualitatively. The economic analyst was unwilling to provide any such predictions,

basing the impact estimates only on the loss of snowmobile business by alternative to the regional

(17-county) and three-state economies.

In its comments on the

, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated alternative G as its environmentally

preferred alternative. EPA stated that without specifics on adaptive management and limitations

on oversnow vehicle use, none of the other a data about what people will do in response to

management changes. However, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR

§1502.22) allow National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes to be completed despite

unavailable or unobtainable data. CEQ regulations allow the construction of reasonably

foreseeable impact scenarios upon which to proceed. The NPS feels it is important to engage in

this approach in response to the indicated comments on the DEIS.

The scenarios constructed for each alternative are based on existing motorized use data, winter

use survey results, the transportation model for Yellowstone National Park (YNP) features of

alternatives that eliminate use, and professional judgment. Once these scenarios’ impacts are

determined through modeling (e.g., air quality and sound) or risk analysis, there will be a basis

for determining mitigation that responds to concerns from EPA, cooperating agencies, and others.

Impacts that might result from alternative G represent target levels of post-mitigation impacts for

other alternatives, in accordance with the labeling of G as environmentally preferred.

Explanation of Method

Each alternative scenario on the following pages describes the units of measure for the analysis.

The units are the same for all alternatives. Numbers in the table represent vehicles using the road

segment over the average day. This is not the same as “visitor-days”. The basis for redistributing

use is the current average daily use on each road or motorized trail segment. Where an

opportunity for use is not available under an alternative, use is considered to be displaced from
G-2

that location. Depending on the alternative, a percentage (from the winter use survey) of

displaced users are assumed to continue to visit and snowmobile in the Greater Yellowstone Area

(GYA) parks, and would be displaced to other open gateway road segments. From visitor use

surveys, it is known that a percentage of all winter users go to various destinations in

Yellowstone. These percentages are applied to the existing and displaced (or redistributed) use

on the open gateway road segments in each alternative. For alternatives in which no segments

are closed to oversnow motorized use, use remains at levels described in current management.

Average daily use on each of the four gateway segments is consistent with average daily entrance

statistics. The entrance statistics for 1992-2000 during the months of January and February are

tabulated below. In each case, the amount of use reflected is not greatly different. The use

shown on the road segment is a product of the transportation analysis, and it should exceed the

entrance statistics. This means that more snowmobiles travel on the segment than enter the park

each day at the gateway, accounting for travel from other entrances or destinations during the

day. Therefore, the modeled statistics for average daily use on road segments provide a

reasonable basis for redistributing use in the alternative scenarios.

Scenarios

The following three tables reflect current use figures by transportation mode. They represent a

scenario for alternative A. Scenarios for alternatives B through G follow, providing tables of use

that could result and narrative calculations for changed use.

After the alternative G scenario is a series of tables, one for each alternative, that present vehiclemiles traveled by road segment. These figures were used to assess risks and impacts for some

resource topics.

Number of snowmobiles entering Yellowstone National Park.

Year Month North Entrance West Entrance South Entrance East Entrance

1992-93 Jan 291 15,252 5,115 1,312

Feb 242 18,018 6,160 1,349

1993-94 Jan 171 15,324 5,346 1,075

Feb 120 18,290 6,435 1,191

1995-96 Jan 655 14,198 4,395 837

Feb 795 22,173 6,459 1,561

1996-97 Jan 507 12,369 4,241 788

Feb 661 17,174 6,081 1,102

1997-98 Jan 605 13,347 4,393 801

Feb 537 16,900 5,988 1,015

1998-99 Jan 573 13,794 4,419 853

Feb 602 16,928 5,441 860

1999-00 Jan 338 13,290 4,673 907

Feb 435 18,937 6,240 1,153

Totals Jan 3,140 97,574 32,580 6,573

Feb 3,392 128,420 75,386 8,231

Grand Total 6532 225,994 75,386 14,804

Mean average day 16 538 176 35

Transportation model mean

average day

30 555 176 37

Yellowstone, Grand Teton and The Parkway area road segments
G-3

average daily use January-February.

Alternative A Current Motorized Use

ROAD SEGMENT Autos Buses/Vans Snowcoaches Snowmobiles

Mammoth to Northeast Entrance 61 4.2 0 0

Mammoth to Norris 0 0 3.3 30.5

West Entrance to Madison 0 0 9.1 554.2

Madison to Norris 0 0 5.2 247.0

Norris to Canyon Village 0 0 3.9 184.5

Canyon Village to Fishing Bridge 0 0 3.1 148.1

Fishing Bridge to East Entrance 0 0 0 36.4

Fishing Bridge to West Thumb 0 0 2.6 125.1

Madison to Old Faithful 0 0 10.3 488.6

Old Faithful to West Thumb 0 0 4.3 209.4

West Thumb to Flagg Ranch 0 0 4.3 175.8

Grassy Lake Road 0 0 0 24.2

Flagg Ranch to Colter Bay 86 9.5 0 24.3

Colter Bay to Moran Junction 192 10 0 24.3

Moran Junction to East Entrance 562 29 0 24.3

Moran Junction to South Entrance 773 39 0 0

Teton Park Road 0 0 0 10.4

Moose-Wilson Road 5 0 0 3

Antelope Flats Snowmobile Route 0 0 0 0

Average peak day use (based on highest use day for each year).

Current Condition

ROAD SEGMENT Autos Buses/Vans Snowcoaches Snowmobiles

Mammoth to Northeast Entrance 107.4 8 0 0

Mammoth to Norris 0 0 6.9 40.5

West Entrance to Madison 0 0 19.0 975.4

Madison to Norris 0 0 10.9 434.7

Norris to Canyon Village 0 0 8.2 324.7

Canyon Village to Fishing Bridge 0 0 6.5 260.7

Fishing Bridge to East Entrance 0 0 0 64.1

Fishing Bridge to West Thumb 0 0 5.4 220.2

Madison to Old Faithful 0 0 21.5 859.9

Old Faithful to West Thumb 0 0 9.0 368.5

West Thumb to Flagg Ranch 0 0 9.0 276.8

Grassy Lake Road 0 0 0 42.6

Flagg Ranch to Colter Bay 151.4 16.7 0 42.8

Colter Bay to Moran Junction 337.9 17.6 0 42.8

Moran Junction to East Entrance 989.1 51.0 0 42.8

Moran Junction to South Entrance 1291.8 68.6 0 0

Teton Park Road 0 0 0 18.3

Moose-Wilson Road 8.8 0 0 5.3

Antelope Flats Snowmobile Route 0 0 0 0

Figures were derived from the following sources: Entrance Station Statistics: Visitor use statistics from Visitor Services Offices of

Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway 1992-1999. Interior Road Segments

in Yellowstone NP and Grand Teton NP: Social Conditions for Winter Use in Yellowstone National Park Final Report (Borrie et. al

1997) and Winter Use Survey Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway

(Littlejohn 1996).
G-4

Yellowstone and Grand Teton area road segments

Alternative B use scenario - average daily use.1

Average Daily Vehicle Use January-February

ROAD SEGMENT Autos Vans Snowcoaches Snowmobiles Buses

Mammoth to Northeast Entrance 60 4 0 0 0

Mammoth to Norris 0 0 3 56 0

West Entrance to Madison 50 80 0 0 2

Madison to Norris 0 0 5 42 0

Norris to Canyon Village 0 0 4 56 0

Canyon Village to Fishing Bridge 0 0 3 242 0

Fishing Bridge to East Entrance 0 0 0 67 0

Fishing Bridge to West Thumb 0 0 3 248 0

Madison to Old Faithful 50 81 0 0 2

Old Faithful to West Thumb 0 0 4 338 0

West Thumb to Flagg Ranch 0 0 4 322 0

Grassy Lake Road 0 0 0 25 0

Flagg Ranch to Colter Bay 100 10 0 25 1

Colter Bay to Moran Junction 200 10 0 25 1

Moran Junction to East Entrance 580 30 0 25 2

Moran Junction to South Entrance 800 40 0 0 2

Teton Park Road 0 0 0 0 0

Moose-Wilson Road 5 0 0 3 0

Antelope Flats Snowmobile Route 0 0 0 0 0

Figures were derived from the following sources: Entrance Station Statistics: Visitor use statistics from Visitor Services Offices of

Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway 1992-1999. Interior Road Segments

in Yellowstone NP and Grand Teton NP: Social Conditions for Winter Use in Yellowstone National Park Final Report (Borrie et al.

1997). Winter Use Survey Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway

(Littlejohn 1996) and Winter 1998-99 Visitor Survey in Yellowstone NP, Grand Teton NP and the GYA (Duffield and Neher 1999).

Visitor Use Scenario

Units of Measure . Numbers in the table represent vehicles using the road segment over the

average day. This is not the same as visitor days. That is, one vehicle can be on more than one

segment during the day, such that it is counted more than once. Numbers for internal road

segments are, therefore, higher than for the segments immediately inside a gateway.

Current Use . From current use figures given in alternative A, 555 snowmobiles on the West

Yellowstone to Madison segment would no longer be able to use that segment. Auto, van and

bus use from West Yellowstone to Old Faithful assumes the number of vehicles needed to

transport all existing use from that gate. Snowmobile use in GTNP and the Parkway is assumed

to remain at current levels, except north of Flagg Ranch.

Potentially Displaced Snowmobile Use . From the winter use survey, 36.9% of visitors stated

they would not change the number of visits to the parks even if the road from West Yellowstone

were plowed. Assuming these respondents would return to snowmobile, 204 snowmobiles would

be displaced to the other three entrances allowing snowmobile access.

Use Distribution to other Gateway Road Segments . The displaced use of 204 units is assumed to

be distributed to the three entrance road segments based on the average current distribution

among the three. With this assumption, 13% (26 units) of the use would be displaced to

Mammoth-Norris, 15% (31 units) to East Entrance-Fishing Bridge, and 72% (146 units) to Flagg

Ranch-West Thumb. These displaced users are added to the current use for each gateway

segment. Auto and van traffic through GTNP is increased from current levels to account for redistribution

of snowmobile use.

Use Distribution from Gateways Road Segments to Park Destinations on Internal Road

Segments . Statistics from the visitor surveys indicate that of all winter users, 76% go to Old Faithful and

48% go to Canyon. These statistics are assumed to apply to the total snowmobile use accessing the park

through each of the three gateways.

Yellowstone and Grand Teton area road segments

Alternative C scenario - average daily use.2

 

1

 For the primary winter season from January 1 through February 29, 2000.

2

 For the primary winter season from January 1 through February 29, 2000.
G-5

Average Daily Vehicle Use January-February

ROAD SEGMENT Autos Vans Snowcoaches Snowmobiles Buses

Mammoth to Northeast Entrance 60 4 0 0 0

Mammoth to Norris until 2/2930 0 4 56 0

West Entrance to Madison 60 10 0 0 2

Madison to Norris 0 0 4 42 0

Norris to Canyon Village until 2/29 0 0 4 56 0

Canyon Village to Fishing Bridge before 2/29 0 0 3 242 0

Fishing Bridge to East Entrance 0 0 0 67 0

Fishing Bridge to West Thumb 0 0 3 248 0

Madison to Old Faithful 91 14 0 0 2

Old Faithful to West Thumb 0 0 4 338 0

West Thumb to Flagg Ranch 0 0 4 322 0

Grassy Lake Road 0 0 0 25 0

Flagg Ranch to Colter Bay 100 10 0 25 1

Colter Bay to Moran Junction 200 10 0 25 1

Moran Junction to East Entrance 580 30 0 25 2

Moran Junction to South Entrance 800 40 0 0 2

Teton Park Road 0 0 0 10 0

Moose-Wilson Road 10 0 0 0 0

Antelope Flats Snowmobile Route 0 0 0 25 0

Figures were derived from the following sources: Entrance Station Statistics: Visitor use statistics from Visitor Services Offices of

Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway 1992-1999. Interior Road Segments

in Yellowstone NP and Grand Teton NP: Social Conditions for Winter Use in Yellowstone National Park Final Report (Borrie et al.

1997). Winter Use Survey Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway

(Littlejohn 1996) and Winter 1998-99 Visitor Survey in Yellowstone NP, Grand Teton NP and the GYA (Duffield and Neher 1999).

Visitor Use Scenario

Units of Measure . See alternative B.

Current Use . From current use figures given in alternative A, 555 snowmobiles on the West

Yellowstone to Madison segment would no longer be able to use that segment. Auto, van and

bus use from West Yellowstone to Old Faithful assumes the number of vehicles needed to

transport all existing use from that gate. Snowmobile use in GTNP and the Parkway is assumed

to remain at current levels, except for use north of Flagg.

Potentially Displaced Snowmobile Use . From the winter use survey, 36.9% of visitors stated

they would not change the number of visits to the parks even if the road from West Yellowstone

were plowed. Assuming these respondents return to snowmobile, 204 snowmobiles would be

displaced to the other three entrances allowing snowmobile access.

Use Distribution to other Gateway Road Segments . The displaced use of 204 units is assumed to

be distributed to the three entrance road segments based on the average current distribution

among the three. With this assumption, 13% (26 units) of the use would be displaced to

Mammoth-Norris, 15% (31 units) to East Entrance-Fishing Bridge, and 72% (146 units) to Flagg

Ranch-West Thumb. These displaced users are added to the current use for each gateway

segment. Auto and van traffic through GTNP is increased from current levels to account for

redistribution of snowmobile use.

Use Distribution from Gateways Road Segments to Park Destinations on Internal Road

Segments . Statistics from the visitor surveys indicate that of all winter users, 76% go to Old

Faithful and 48% go to Canyon. These statistics are assumed to apply to the total snowmobile

use accessing the park through each of the three gateways.

Yellowstone and Grand Teton area road segments

Alternative D scenario - average daily use.4

Average Daily Vehicle Use January-February

 

3

 After February 29, 2000 snowcoach only from Norris to Canyon and Fishing Bridge; road plowed from Mammoth to

Madison Junction.

4

 For the primary winter season from January 1 through February 29, 2000.
G-6

ROAD SEGMENT Autos Vans Snowcoaches Snowmobiles Buses

Mammoth to Northeast Entrance 61 4 0 0 0

Mammoth to Norris 0 0 3 31 0

West Entrance to Madison 0 0 9 555 0

Madison to Norris 0 0 5 247 0

Norris to Canyon Village 0 0 4 185 0

Canyon Village to Fishing Bridge 0 0 3 148 0

Fishing Bridge to East Entrance 0 0 0 0 0

Fishing Bridge to West Thumb 0 0 3 125 0

Madison to Old Faithful 0 0 10 490 0

Old Faithful to West Thumb 0 0 4 210 0

West Thumb to Flagg Ranch 0 0 4 176 0

Grassy Lake Road 0 0 0 25 0

Flagg Ranch to Colter Bay 0 0 4 176 1

Colter Bay to Moran Junction 190 10 0 25 1

Moran Junction to East Entrance 560 30 0 25 2

Moran Junction to South Entrance 770 40 0 0 2

Teton Park Road 0 0 0 0 0

Moose-Wilson Road 10 2 0 0 0

Antelope Flats Snowmobile Route 0 0 0 0 0

Figures were derived from the following sources: Entrance Station Statistics: Visitor use statistics from Visitor Services Offices of

Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway 1992-1999. Interior Road Segments

in Yellowstone NP and Grand Teton NP: Social Conditions for Winter Use in Yellowstone National Park Final Report (Borrie et al.

1997). Winter Use Survey Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway

(Littlejohn 1996) and Winter 1998-99 Visitor Survey in Yellowstone NP, Grand Teton NP and the GYA (Duffield and Neher 1999).

Visitor Use Scenario

Units of Measure . Numbers in the table represent vehicles using the road segment over the

average day. This is not the same as visitor days. That is, one vehicle can be on more than one

segment during the day, such that it is counted more than once. Numbers for internal road

segments are therefore higher than for the segments immediately inside a gateway.

Current Use . All current use figures given in alternative A for YNP apply in this alternative,

except for the average 36 snowmobiles per day on the East Entrance to Fishing Bridge segment.

Potentially Displaced Snowmobile Use . The average of 36 snowmobiles from East Entrance

could be redistributed to other entrances, but is assumed not to affect the average use on other

segments significantly.
G-7

Yellowstone and Grand Teton area road segments

Alternative E scenario - average daily use.5

Average Daily Vehicle Use January-February

ROAD SEGMENT Autos Vans Snowcoaches Snowmobiles Buses

Mammoth to Northeast Entrance 61 4 0 0 0

Mammoth to Norris 0 0 3 31 0

West Entrance to Madison 0 0 9 555 0

Madison to Norris 0 0 5 247 0

Norris to Canyon Village 0 0 4 185 0

Canyon Village to Fishing Bridge 0 0 3 148 0

Fishing Bridge to East Entrance 0 0 0 36 0

Fishing Bridge to West Thumb 0 0 3 125 0

Madison to Old Faithful 0 0 10 490 0

Old Faithful to West Thumb 0 0 4 210 0

West Thumb to Flagg Ranch 0 0 4 176 0

Grassy Lake Road 0 0 0 25 0

Flagg Ranch to Colter Bay 86 15 0 0 1

Colter Bay to Moran Junction 192 15 0 0 1

Moran Junction to East Entrance 560 35 0 0 2

Moran Junction to South Entrance 770 40 0 0 2

Teton Park Road 0 0 0 0 0

Moose-Wilson Road 5 0 0 0 0

Antelope Flats Snowmobile Route 0 0 0 0 0

Figures were derived from the following sources: Entrance Station Statistics: Visitor use statistics from Visitor Services Offices of

Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway 1992-1999. Interior Road Segments

in Yellowstone NP and Grand Teton NP: Social Conditions for Winter Use in Yellowstone National Park Final Report (Borrie et al.

1997). Winter Use Survey Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway

(Littlejohn 1996) and Winter 1998-99 Visitor Survey in Yellowstone NP, Grand Teton NP and the GYA (Duffield and Neher 1999).

Visitor Use Scenario

Units of Measure . Numbers in the table represent vehicles using the road segment over the

average day. This is not the same as visitor days. That is, one vehicle can be on more than one

segment during the day, such that it is counted more than once. Numbers for internal road

segments are therefore higher than for the segments immediately inside a gateway.

Current Use . All current use figures given in alternative A for YNP apply in this alternative,

except for use in GTNP and the Parkway. Current use on the Continental Divide Snowmobile

Trail (CDST) coming from the east would be shuttled by wheeled vehicle from the East Entrance

near Moran to Flagg Ranch in this alternative.

Potentially Displaced Snowmobile Use . No use would be displaced. The number of vans is

increased from the East Entrance near Moran to Flagg Ranch because of shuttle vehicles for

snowmobiles on the CDST.

 

5

 For the primary winter season from January 1 through February 29, 2000.
G-8

Yellowstone and Grand Teton area road segments

Alternative F scenario - average daily use.6

Average Daily Vehicle Use January-February

ROAD SEGMENT Autos Vans Snowcoaches Snowmobiles Buses

Mammoth to Northeast Entrance 60 4 0 0 0

Mammoth to Norris 0 0 0 0 0

West Entrance to Madison 0 0 0 0 0

Madison to Norris 0 0 0 0 0

Norris to Canyon Village 0 0 3 100 0

Canyon Village to Fishing Bridge 0 0 3 217 0

Fishing Bridge to East Entrance 0 0 0 77 0

Fishing Bridge to West Thumb 0 0 3 239 0

Madison to Old Faithful 0 0 0 0 0

Old Faithful to West Thumb 0 0 4 343 0

West Thumb to Flagg Ranch 0 0 4 374 0

Grassy Lake Road 0 0 0 25 0

Flagg Ranch to Colter Bay 100 15 0 0 1

Colter Bay to Moran Junction 200 15 0 0 1

Moran Junction to East Entrance 580 30 0 0 2

Moran Junction to South Entrance 800 40 0 0 2

Teton Park Road 0 0 0 0 0

Moose-Wilson Road 5 0 0 0 0

Antelope Flats Snowmobile Route 0 0 0 0 0

Figures were derived from the following sources: Entrance Station Statistics: Visitor use statistics from Visitor Services Offices of

Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway 1992-1999. Interior Road Segments

in Yellowstone NP and Grand Teton NP: Social Conditions for Winter Use in Yellowstone National Park Final Report (Borrie et al.

1997). Winter Use Survey Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway

(Littlejohn 1996) and Winter 1998-99 Visitor Survey in Yellowstone NP, Grand Teton NP and the GYA (Duffield and Neher, 1999).

Visitor Use Scenario

Units of Measure . Numbers in the table represent vehicles using the road segment over the

average day. This is not the same as visitor days. That is, one vehicle can be on more than one

segment during the day, such that it is counted more than once. Numbers for internal road

segments are therefore higher than for the segments immediately inside a gateway.

Current Use . From current use figures given in alternative A, 555 snowmobiles on the West

Yellowstone to Madison segment would no longer be able to use that segment, and 31 would not

be able to use the Mammoth to Norris segment. Snowmobile use in GTNP and the Parkway is

assumed to remain at current levels, except for use north of Flagg Ranch.

Potentially Displaced Snowmobile Use . From the winter use survey, 40.6 % of visitors stated

they would not change the number of visits to the parks even if these road segments were closed.

Assuming these respondents return to snowmobile, 238 snowmobiles would be displaced to the

other two entrances allowing snowmobile access.

Use Distribution to other Gateway Road Segments . The displaced use of 238 units is assumed to

be distributed to the two entrance road segments based on the average current distribution

between them. With this assumption, 17% (41 units) of the use would be displaced to East

Entrance-Fishing Bridge, and 83% (198 units) to Flagg Ranch-West Thumb. These displaced

users are added to the current use for each gateway segment. Auto and van traffic through GTNP

is increased from current levels to account for redistribution of snowmobile use.

Use Distribution from Gateways Road Segments to Park Destinations on Internal Road

Segments . Statistics from the visitor surveys indicate that of all winter users, 76% go to Old

Faithful and 48% go to Canyon. These statistics are assumed to apply to the total snowmobile

use accessing the park through each of the two gateways.

Yellowstone and Grand Teton area road segments

Alternative G scenario - average daily use.7

 

6

 For the primary winter season from January 1 through February 29, 2000.
G-9

Average Daily Vehicle Use January-February

ROAD SEGMENT Autos Vans Snowcoaches Snowmobiles Buses

Mammoth to Northeast Entrance 60 4 0 0 0

Mammoth to Norris 0 0 8 0 0

West Entrance to Madison 0 0 88 0 0

Madison to Norris 0 0 40 0 0

Norris to Canyon Village 0 0 30 0 0

Canyon Village to Fishing Bridge 0 0 24 0 0

Fishing Bridge to East Entrance 0 0 5 0 0

Fishing Bridge to West Thumb 0 0 20 0 0

Madison to Old Faithful 0 0 80 0 0

Old Faithful to West Thumb 0 0 34 0 0

West Thumb to Flagg Ranch 0 0 29 0 0

Grassy Lake Road 0 0 4 0 0

Flagg Ranch to Colter Bay 0 0 29 0 0

Colter Bay to Moran Junction 190 10 0 0 1

Moran Junction to East Entrance 560 28 0 0 2

Moran Junction to South Entrance 770 37 0 0 2

Teton Park Road 0 0 0 0 0

Moose-Wilson Road 5 0 0 0 0

Antelope Flats Snowmobile Route 0 0 0 0 0

Figures were derived from the following sources: Entrance Station Statistics: Visitor use statistics from Visitor Services Offices of

Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway 1992-1999. Interior Road Segments

in Yellowstone NP and Grand Teton NP: Social Conditions for Winter Use in Yellowstone National Park Final Report (Borrie et al.

1997). Winter Use Survey Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway

(Littlejohn 1996) and Winter 1998-99 Visitor Survey in Yellowstone NP, Grand Teton NP and the GYA (Duffield and Neher, 1999).

Visitor Use Scenario

Units of Measure . Numbers in the table represent vehicles using the road segment over the

average day. This is not the same as visitor days. That is, one vehicle can be on more than one

segment during the day, such that it is counted more than once.

Current Use . All current use and its distribution, as shown in alternative A, is accommodated in

this alternative. Snowmobile use by segment is divided by seven with the assumption of seven

people per snowcoach. Current use figures indicate the average occupancy is 7.7 people per

snowcoach.

 

7

 For the primary winter season from January 1 through February 29, 2000, with snowcoaches accommodating all

visitor days currently used by snowmobilers.
G-10

Vehicle miles traveled by road segment

by alternative as an index to potential impacts.

Alternative A Average Daily Use, Vehicle-Miles, January-February

ROAD SEGMENT Mi. Autos Vans Snowcoaches Snowmobiles Buses Total

Mammoth to Northeast Entrance 47 2,867 197 0 0 0 3,064

Mammoth to Norris 21 0 0 69 641 0 710

West Entrance to Madison 14 0 0 127 7,759 0 7,886

Madison to Norris 14 0 0 73 3,458 0 3,531

Norris to Canyon Village 12 0 0 47 2,214 0 2,261

Canyon Village to Fishing Bridge 16 0 0 50 2,370 0 2,420

Fishing Bridge to East Entrance 27 0 0 0 983 0 983

Fishing Bridge to West Thumb 21 0 0 55 2,627 0 2,682

Madison to Old Faithful 16 0 0 165 7,818 0 7,983

Old Faithful to West Thumb 17 0 0 73 3,560 0 3,633

West Thumb to Flagg Ranch 24 0 0 103 4,219 0 4,322

Grassy Lake Road 8 0 0 0 184 0 184

Flagg Ranch to Colter Bay 16 1,342 132 0 379 16 1,869

Colter Bay to Moran Junction 10 1,958 92 0 248 10 2,308

Moran Junction to East Entrance 2 1,124 54 0 49 4 1,231

Moran Junction to South Entrance 26 20,100 52 0 0 52 20,204

Teton Park Road 15 0 0 0 156 0 156

Moose-Wilson Road 2 10 0 0 6 0 16

Antelope Flats Snowmobile Route 30 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 27,401 527 762 36,671 82 65,443

Alternative B Average Daily Use, Vehicle-Miles, January-February

ROAD SEGMENT Mi. Autos Vans Snowcoaches Snowmobiles Buses Total

Mammoth to Northeast Entrance 47 2,820 188 0 0 0 3,008

Mammoth to Norris 21 0 0 63 1,176 0 1,239

West Entrance to Madison 14 700 1,120 0 0 28 1,848

Madison to Norris 14 0 0 70 588 0 658

Norris to Canyon Village 12 0 0 48 672 0 720

Canyon Village to Fishing Bridge 16 0 0 48 3,872 0 3,920

Fishing Bridge to East Entrance 27 0 0 0 1,809 0 1,809

Fishing Bridge to West Thumb 21 0 0 63 5,208 0 5,271

Madison to Old Faithful 16 800 1,296 0 0 32 2,128

Old Faithful to West Thumb 17 0 0 68 5,746 0 5,814

West Thumb to Flagg Ranch 24 0 0 96 7,728 0 7,824

Grassy Lake Road 8 0 0 0 200 0 200

Flagg Ranch to Colter Bay 16 1,600 160 0 400 16 2,176

Colter Bay to Moran Junction 10 2,000 100 0 250 10 2,360

Moran Junction to East Entrance 2 1,160 60 0 50 4 1,274

Moran Junction to South Entrance 26 20,800 1,040 0 0 52 21,892

Teton Park Road 15 0 0 0 0 0 0

Moose-Wilson Road 2 10 0 0 6 0 16

Antelope Flats Snowmobile Route 30 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 29,890 3,964 456 27,705 142 62,157

Alternative C Average Daily Use, Vehicle-Miles, January-February

ROAD SEGMENT Mi. Autos Vans Snowcoaches Snowmobiles Buses Total
G-11

Mammoth to Northeast Entrance 47 2,820 188 0 0 0 3,008

Mammoth to Norris until 2/29821 0 0 63 1,176 0 1,239

West Entrance to Madison 14 840 140 0 0 28 1,008

Madison to Norris 14 0 0 56 588 0 644

Norris to Canyon Village until

2/29

12 0 0 48 672 0 720

Canyon Village to Fishing Bridge

before 2/29

16 0 0 48 3,872 0 3,920

Fishing Bridge to East Entrance 27 0 0 0 1,809 0 1,809

Fishing Bridge to West Thumb 21 0 0 63 5,208 0 5,271

Madison to Old Faithful 16 1,456 224 0 0 32 1,712

Old Faithful to West Thumb 17 0 0 68 5,746 0 5,814

West Thumb to Flagg Ranch 24 0 0 96 7,728 0 7,824

Grassy Lake Road 8 0 0 0 400 0 400

Flagg Ranch to Colter Bay 16 1,600 160 0 800 16 2,576

Colter Bay to Moran Junction 10 2,000 100 0 250 10 2,360

Moran Junction to East Entrance 2 1,160 60 0 50 4 1,274

Moran Junction to South Entrance 26 20,800 1,040 0 0 52 21,892

Teton Park Road 15 0 0 0 150 0 150

Moose-Wilson Road 2 20 0 0 0 0 20

Antelope Flats Snowmobile Route 30 0 0 0 750 0 750

Total 30,696 1,912 442 29,199 142 62,391

Alternative D Average Daily Use, Vehicle-Miles, January-February

ROAD SEGMENT Mi. Autos Vans Snowcoaches Snowmobiles Buses Total

Mammoth to Northeast Entrance 47 2,867 197 0 0 0 3,064

Mammoth to Norris 21 0 0 69 641 0 710

West Entrance to Madison 14 0 0 127 7,759 0 7,886

Madison to Norris 14 0 0 73 3,458 0 3,531

Norris to Canyon Village 12 0 0 47 2,214 0 2,261

Canyon Village to Fishing Bridge 16 0 0 3 148 0 151

Fishing Bridge to East Entrance 27 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fishing Bridge to West Thumb 21 0 0 55 2,627 0 2,682

Madison to Old Faithful 16 0 0 160 7,840 0 8,000

Old Faithful to West Thumb 17 0 0 73 3,560 0 3,633

West Thumb to Flagg Ranch 24 0 0 103 4,219 0 4,322

Grassy Lake Road 8 0 0 0 200 0 200

Flagg Ranch to Colter Bay 16 0 0 64 2,816 16 2,896

Colter Bay to Moran Junction 10 1,900 100 0 250 10 2,260

Moran Junction to East Entrance 2 1,120 60 0 50 4 1,234

Moran Junction to South Entrance 26 20,020 1,040 0 0 52 21,112

Teton Park Road 15 0 0 0 0 0 0

Moose-Wilson Road 2 20 4 0 0 0 24

Antelope Flats Snowmobile Route 30 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 25,927 1,401 774 35,782 82 63,966

Alternative E Average Daily Use, Vehicle-Miles, January-February

ROAD SEGMENT Mi. Autos Vans Snowcoaches Snowmobiles Buses Total

Mammoth to Northeast Entrance 47 2,867 197 0 0 0 3,064

Mammoth to Norris 21 0 0 69 641 0 710

 

8

 After February 29, 2000, snowcoach only from Norris to Canyon and Fishing Bridge; road plowed from Mammoth to

Madison Junction.
G-12

West Entrance to Madison 14 0 0 127 7,759 0 7,886

Madison to Norris 14 0 0 73 3,458 0 3,531

Norris to Canyon Village 12 0 0 47 2,214 0 2,261

Canyon Village to Fishing Bridge 16 0 0 50 2,370 0 2,420

Fishing Bridge to East Entrance 27 0 0 0 983 0 983

Fishing Bridge to West Thumb 21 0 0 55 2,627 0 2,682

Madison to Old Faithful 16 0 0 165 7,818 0 7,983

Old Faithful to West Thumb 17 0 0 73 3,560 0 3,633

West Thumb to Flagg Ranch 24 0 0 103 4,219 0 4,322

Grassy Lake Road 8 0 0 0 200 0 200

Flagg Ranch to Colter Bay 16 1,376 240 0 0 16 1,632

Colter Bay to Moran Junction 10 1,920 150 0 0 10 2,080

Moran Junction to East Entrance 2 1,120 70 0 0 4 1,194

Moran Junction to South Entrance 26 20,020 1,040 0 0 52 21,112

Teton Park Road 15 0 0 0 0 0 0

Moose-Wilson Road 2 10 0 0 0 0 10

Antelope Flats Snowmobile Route 30 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 27,313 1,697 762 35,849 82 65,703

Alternative F Average Daily Use, Vehicle-Miles, January-February

ROAD SEGMENT Mi. Autos Vans Snowcoaches Snowmobiles Buses Total

Mammoth to Northeast Entrance 47 2,820 188 0 0 0 3,008

Mammoth to Norris 21 0 0 0 0 0 0

West Entrance to Madison 14 0 0 0 0 0 0

Madison to Norris 14 0 0 0 0 0 0

Norris to Canyon Village 12 0 0 36 1,200 0 1,236

Canyon Village to Fishing Bridge 16 0 0 48 3,472 0 3,520

Fishing Bridge to East Entrance 27 0 0 0 2,079 0 2,079

Fishing Bridge to West Thumb 21 0 0 63 5,019 0 5,082

Madison to Old Faithful 16 0 0 0 0 0 0

Old Faithful to West Thumb 17 0 0 68 5,831 0 5,899

West Thumb to Flagg Ranch 24 0 0 96 8,976 0 9,072

Grassy Lake Road 8 0 0 0 200 0 200

Flagg Ranch to Colter Bay 16 1,600 240 0 0 16 1,856

Colter Bay to Moran Junction 10 2,000 150 0 0 10 2,160

Moran Junction to East Entrance 2 1,160 60 0 0 4 1,224

Moran Junction to South Entrance 26 20,800 1,040 0 0 52 21,892

Teton Park Road 15 0 0 0 0 0 0

Moose-Wilson Road 2 10 0 0 0 0 10

Antelope Flats Snowmobile Route 30 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 28,390 1,678 311 26,777 82 57,238

Alternative G Average Daily Use, Vehicle-Miles, January-February

ROAD SEGMENT Mi. Autos Vans Snowcoaches Snowmobiles Buses Total

Mammoth to Northeast Entrance 47 2,820 188 0 0 0 3,008

Mammoth to Norris 21 0 0 168 0 0 168

West Entrance to Madison 14 0 0 1,232 0 0 1,232

Madison to Norris 14 0 0 560 0 0 560

Norris to Canyon Village 12 0 0 360 0 0 360
G-13

Canyon Village to Fishing Bridge 16 0 0 384 0 0 384

Fishing Bridge to East Entrance 27 0 0 135 0 0 135

Fishing Bridge to West Thumb 21 0 0 420 0 0 420

Madison to Old Faithful 16 0 0 1,280 0 0 1,280

Old Faithful to West Thumb 17 0 0 578 0 0 578

West Thumb to Flagg Ranch 24 0 0 696 0 0 696

Grassy Lake Road 8 0 0 32 0 0 320

Flagg Ranch to Colter Bay 16 0 0 464 0 0 464

Colter Bay to Moran Junction 10 1,900 100 0 0 10 2,010

Moran Junction to East Entrance 2 1,120 56 0 0 4 1,180

Moran Junction to South Entrance 26 20,020 962 0 0 52 21,034

Teton Park Road 15 0 0 0 0 0 0

Moose-Wilson Road 2 10 0 0 0 0 10

Antelope Flats Snowmobile Route 30 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 25,870 1,306 6,277 0 66 33,551

Alternative comparison, total vehicle miles per day by segment

Average Daily Use, Vehicle-Miles, January-February

ROAD SEGMENT Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F Alt G

Mammoth to Northeast Entrance 3,064 3,008 3,008 3,064 3,064 3,008 3,008

Mammoth to Norris 710 1,239 1,239 710 710 0 168

West Entrance to Madison 7,886 1,848 1,008 7,886 7,886 0 1,232

Madison to Norris 3,531 658 644 3,531 3,531 0 560

Norris to Canyon Village 2,261 720 720 2,261 2,261 1,236 360

Canyon Village to Fishing Bridge 2,420 3,920 3,920 151 2,420 3,520 384

Fishing Bridge to East Entrance 983 1,809 1,809 0 983 2,079 135

Fishing Bridge to West Thumb 2,682 5,271 5,271 2,682 2,682 5,082 420

Madison to Old Faithful 7,983 2,128 1,712 8,000 7,983 0 1,280

Old Faithful to West Thumb 3,633 5,814 5,814 3,633 3,633 5,899 578

West Thumb to Flagg Ranch 4,322 7,824 7,824 4,322 4,322 9,072 696

Grassy Lake Road 184 200 400 200 200 200 32

Flagg Ranch to Colter Bay 1,869 2,176 2,576 2,896 1,632 1,856 464

Colter Bay to Moran Junction 2,308 2,360 2,360 2,260 2,080 2,160 2,010

Moran Junction to East Entrance 1,231 11,274 1,274 1,234 1,194 1,224 1,180

Moran Junction to South Entrance 20,204 21,892 21,892 21,112 21,112 21,892 21,034

Teton Park Road 156 0 150 0 0 0 0

Moose-Wilson Road 16 16 20 24 10 10 10

Antelope Flats Snowmobile Route 0 0 750 0 0 0 0

Total 65,443 62,157 62,391 63,966 65,703 57,238 33,551

Percent Change from Alt A -- -5.0% -4.7% -2.2% +0.4% -12.5% -48.8%

Normalize to Total Oversnow 38,191 34,915 35,149 36,724 38,461 29,996 6,277

Percent Change from Alt A -- -8.6% -8.0% -3.8% +0.7% -21.5% -83.6%
G-14

SCENARIO FOR DISPLACEMENT OF RECREATION USE FROM YELLOWSTONE

AND GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARKS AND THE JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER,

JR., MEMORIAL PARKWAY TO ADJACENT LANDS

Introduction

The cooperating agencies, in particular the Forest Service (USFS), requested the NPS to perform

an estimate of the amount of use that would be displaced from the parks and redistributed to

adjacent lands in the Greater Yellowstone Area, by alternative. This request was based on

concerns about increased use by snowmobiles, primarily, on the national forests. The Forest

Service wanted to perform as detailed an analysis as possible in response to these concerns, and

have the analysis disclosed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as effects on adjacent

lands. The NPS’ view is that a prediction of what will happen on national forests, in terms of

recreation and secondary or tertiary effects on resources, is speculative and remote. The NPS

agreed to provide a scenario based on recreation opportunities that would be available or lost

under each alternative, and the amount of known recreation use that could be displaced from each

gateway. The NPS needed to construct a similar scenario for each alternative that dealt with

redistribution of recreation use within the parks themselves. This analysis is also documented in

this appendix. The two analyses are related by common assumptions. This is not a worst-case

scenario. Rather the intent was to develop scenarios that are reasonable, and based on available

information from recent surveys and visitation statistics as shown in the assumptions below. The

Forest Service treated displacement figures as a range, which conveyed the possibility of a worst

case. The following analysis has been updated with statistics from the final visitor survey, so

they may be slightly different than those originally supplied to the Forest Service.

Assumptions

• All survey data was taken from the Final Report 1998-99 Visitor Survey Yellowstone NP and

the Greater Yellowstone Area: Analysis and Results (Duffield and Neher 2000). Visitor use

statistics are average annual winter visitation from 1992 through 1999. For Yellowstone

these numbers include visitors entering from the North, East, West, and South Entrances that

participated in one or all of the following activities: skiing, snowmobiling, and riding a

snowcoach. For Grand Teton, visitor use numbers are the average visitor use statistics from

the years 1993 through 1999 and include visitors that participated in one or all of the

following activities: snowmobiling, skiing, and riding in snowplanes on Jackson Lake.

• Refer to page 19 of the Final Report 1998-99 Visitor Survey Yellowstone NP and the Greater

Yellowstone Area: Analysis and Results for a breakdown of the percentage of visitors

participating in various activities by entrance station.

• Because the displacement issue deals exclusively with those current winter park visitors that

would choose another area of the GYA instead of the national parks (due to a change in park

management) only the winter portion of the recent surveys completed by John Duffield and

Chris Neher of Bioeconomics was used. Some questions from the summer survey (and

telephone survey) may be useful in formulating assumptions about how visitors who do not

currently use the park in winter may choose to do so under a given alternative.

• Since the question to be answered is specific to current park users that would recreate on the

national forests instead of the in the parks, Chris Neher of Bioeconomics recommended using

only the survey sample collected in the park to calculate displaced users. The forest sample

may be helpful in determining answers to other questions

• Each of the survey questions included the response category of “unsure” (see page 21 of the

draft Duffield winter survey report). Where that number represents a significant number, a
G-15

percentage of that response rate was calculated into the total number of displaced users

identified under each alternative. The number used was a percentage proportionate to the

percentage of visitor responses that indicated they would visit other areas of the GYA.

• The basis for visitation is the number of oversnow winter recreation trips to the parks

determined in the winter survey (88,250). Percentages used to develop answers to survey

questions discriminate between resident visitors and nonresidents. Residents represent 39.7%

of the visitation (35,035 trips) and nonresidents 60.3% (53,215 trips). These percentages are

applied to the total visitation as a basis for interpreting the answers to questions that may bear

on recreation displacement.

• For each alternative the following information is provided: a brief description of the proposed

changes in modes of transportation, and information from specific survey questions

pertaining to that change in mode of transportation. Where specific survey data are not

available, visitor use statistics for the disallowed activity or area are provided. It may be

assumed (for lack of better information) that the number of displaced visitors would be

somewhere between 0 and the total number of current winter visitors to that area.

• In evaluating the number of winter visitors that would be displaced to national forest lands

information was not available on which specific areas of the GYA these visitors would

choose to relocate to. The survey may provide additional information, upon which the reader

may base assumptions on how this use would be distributed. Since these assumptions require

a thorough understanding of use on the national forests, they have not been made here.

(Winter visitor use statistics by park entrance were attached to the documentation for use by

the Forest Service.)

Displacement Calculation by Alternative

Alternative A-No action

It may be assumed that the existing winter visitor use trends for a given area would continue.

Alternative B

Summary of Transportation Changes Proposed in Alternative B

• In YNP, the road from the West Entrance east to Madison and south to Old Faithful would be

plowed throughout the winter. Visitor access would be provided on this route via a mass

transit van or bus service. All other groomed routes would remain. Nonmotorized users may

be restricted to designated trails in important wildlife winter range.

• In GTNP, the interior park road would be open to only nonmotorized activities. The CDST

would be relocated to a trail off the highway corridor. Snowplane use only would continue

on the surface of Jackson Lake, in addition to nonmotorized uses.

Estimated Change in Visitation as a Result of Alternative B

Yellowstone National Park

Survey question 16 (final survey, page 30, Table 4.15) asked respondents how they would change

their visitation to the parks if the road from West Yellowstone to Madison to Old Faithful were

plowed and open for car/bus travel only (Duffield and Neher 2000). Displacement could be to

adjacent lands or to other park entrances.
G-16

Average total annual

oversnow winter trips

to Yellowstone

Number of trips for visitors that

would visit the same amount to the

GYA, but would go to other

destinations

Number of trips for

visitors who are unsure

how their visitation

would change

Total trips possibly

displaced from YNP to

other GYA destinations

88,250 6,710* 14,670* 21,380*

*Calculation:

Nonresident trips x % nonresident going to other destinations + resident trips x % resident going to other

destinations

(53215 trips x 8.4%) + (35035 trips x 6.4%) = 4470 + 2240 = 6710 trips

(53215 trips x 16.9%) + (35035 trips x 16.2%) = 8990 + 5680 = 14670 trips

Grand Teton National Park

Since no specific survey questions were asked concerning proposals to change modes of winter

transportation and recreation in GTNP the following use statistics might be helpful. The NPS

theorizes that users on the interior park road could either trailer to the CDST and snowmobile

there, or stage from Flagg Ranch, or go to available areas on the Bridger-Teton National Forest

nearby.

Average annual number of snowmobilers on the interior park road: 3,617

Average annual number of snowplane users on Jackson Lake: 1,658

Alternative C

Summary of Transportation Changes Proposed in Alternative C

• In YNP, the road from West Entrance east to Madison and south to Old Faithful would be

plowed throughout the winter. Visitor access would be provided on this route via private

vehicle. The road from Mammoth south through Norris to Madison would be plowed

beginning in late February. All other groomed routes would remain.

• In GTNP, the Moose-Wilson Road and the Antelope Flats road would be plowed.

Estimated Change in Visitation as a Result of Alternative C

Yellowstone National Park

Assume displacement figures noted for alternative B, plus the following. Displacement could be

to adjacent lands or to other park entrances.

Average annual use (oversnow activities only) for February via the North Entrance: 1,631

Average annual use (oversnow activities only) for March via the North Entrance: 98

Grand Teton National Park

No figures are available for the number of snowmobiles currently using the Moose-Wilson road.

The estimated amount of snowmobile use on this road is minimal. Overall use in GTNP under

this alternative would remain the same as in alternative A. Motorized opportunities are increased

rather than decreased.

Alternative D

Summary of Transportation Changes Proposed in Alternative D

• In YNP, the East Entrance road would be closed to motorized uses. Nonmotorized uses

would be restricted to designated trails in important winter range EXCEPT in the Mammoth

and Tower areas.

• In GTNP, the road from Colter Bay to Flagg Ranch would be groomed for oversnow

motorized travel. Nonmotorized travel only on the interior park road.
G-17

Estimated Change in Visitation as a Result of Alternative D

Yellowstone National Park

Average annual snowmobile visitation through the East Entrance is 3,336. These users could be

displaced either to adjacent lands or other park entrances.

Grand Teton National Park

Since no specific survey questions were asked concerning proposals to change modes of winter

transportation and recreation in GTNP the following use statistics might be helpful. Users on the

interior park road could either trailer to the CDST and snowmobile there, or stage from Flagg

Ranch, or go to available areas on the Bridger-Teton National Forest nearby.

Average annual number of snowmobilers on the interior park road: 3, 617

Average annual number of snowplane users on Jackson Lake: 1,658

Skiers who presently access areas by wheeled vehicle from Colter Bay to Flagg Ranch would no

longer be able to do so. However, because most of GTNP off roads would be allocated to

nonmotorized use only, and because oversnow access from Colter to Flagg would be possible,

skiing use would not be displaced within the park.

Survey question 17 (page 34, Table 4.18) asked respondents how they would change their

visitation to the parks if the road from Colter Bay to Flagg Ranch were groomed for oversnow

motorized travel (Duffield and Neher 2000). The current annual number of winter automobile

travelers driving from Colter Bay to Flagg Ranch, is about 23,000.

Average annual winter visitation to GTNP (DEIS use numbers): 25,312

Number of trips for visitors that would visit the same amount to the GYA, but would go to other

destinations: 1230*

Number of trips for visitors who are unsure how their visitation would change: 7262*

*Calculation:

Nonresident trips x % nonresident going to other destinations + resident trips x % resident going to other

destinations

(19490 trips x 4.7%) + (5822 trips x 5.4%) = 916 + 314 = 1230 trips

(19490 trips x 31.2%) + (5822 trips x 20.3%) = 6080 + 1182 = 7262 trips

Total trips possibly displaced from Yellowstone to other GYA destinations: 8492

Alternative E

Summary of Transportation Changes Proposed in Alternative E

• In YNP, there are no transportation-based changes proposed in alternative E.

• In GTNP, the CDST would be eliminated. All oversnow motorized uses are eliminated

except for use on the Grassy Lake road and north of Flagg Ranch.

Estimated Change in Visitation as a Result of Alternative E

Yellowstone National Park

No changes in patterns of winter visitation are anticipated under alternative E.

Grand Teton National Park
G-18

Total average annual visitation to GTNP (excluding the Grassy Lake Road and use north of Flagg

Ranch, which would still be available for motorized use.)

CDST and the Parkway Snowmobiling: 18,860

Non-CDST Snowmobiling: 1,850

Snowplaning: 1,660

Skiing: 3,260

Total: 25,300

Other than elimination of snowmobiling on the Teton Park Road, which could displace about

3,600 snowmobile trips/visits per year (as in alternatives B and D), most of the snowmobiling

that occurs is on the CDST and the Parkway going into YNP. Since the access to YNP would

remain, staged from Flagg Ranch, most of the snowmobile use would not be displaced from the

parks.

Alternative F

Summary of Transportation Changes Proposed in Alternative F

• In YNP, road sections from West Entrance to Madison, Madison to Norris, Mammoth to

Norris and Norris to Madison would be closed to all uses from November 1 through midApril. Nonmotorized uses would be allowed only on front country groomed trails. No

backcountry use would be allowed.

• In GTNP, same as alternative E.

Estimated Change in Visitation as a Result of Alternative F

Yellowstone National Park

Survey question 18 (page 34, Table 4.18) asked respondents how they would change their

visitation to the parks if the road from West Entrance to Madison, Madison to Norris, Mammoth

to Norris and Norris to Madison were closed to all uses (Duffield and Neher 2000). Displaced use

from the north and west YNP could be displaced to the south on both GTNP and to national

forest lands.
G-19

Average total annual

oversnow winter trips

to YNP

Number of trips for visitors that

would visit the same amount to the

GYA, but would go to other

destinations

 Number of trips for

visitors who are unsure

how their visitation

would change

Total trips possibly

displaced from

Yellowstone to other

GYA destinations

88,250 3,998 * 15,604* 19,602

*Calculation:

Nonresident trips x % nonresident going to other destinations + resident trips x % residents going to other destinations

(67952 trips x 4.3%) + (20297 trips x 5.3%) = 2922 + 1076 = 3998 trips

(67952 trips x 17.5 %) + (20297 trips x 18.3%) = 11890 + 3714 = 15604 trips

Total average annual number of skiers to YNP is 844. Backcountry skiers would be displaced within the

GYA to either GTNP or to adjacent forest lands.

Alternative G

Summary of Transportation Changes Proposed in Alternative G

• In YNP and GTNP, all existing groomed oversnow motorized routes would remain.

Transportation would be provided by the NPS managed mass transit snowcoach.

• In GTNP no motorized uses would occur on the surface of Jackson Lake. The road from

Colter Bay to Flagg Ranch would be groomed for snowcoach only travel.

Estimated Change in Visitation on National Forests as a Result of Alternative G

Under this scenario 32% of nonresident visitors and 13% of resident visitors sampled stated they

would not visit GYA. Considering the use of parks as well as national forests by visitors on trips

to the GYA, visitation lost to the parks would be lost to the adjacent lands as well.

Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park

Survey question 17 (page 30, Table 4.15) asked respondents how they would change their

visitation to the parks under a policy that allowed only snowcoach, skiing and snowshoe access to

YNP and GTNP (Duffield and Neher 2000).

Average total

annual oversnow

winter trips to

the parks

Number of trips for visitors

that would visit the same

amount to the GYA, but

would go to other destinations

 Number of trips for

visitors who are unsure

how their visitation

would change

Total trips possibly

displaced from

Yellowstone to other

GYA destinations

YNP 88,250 3,998 * 15,604 * 19,602

GTNP 25,312 1,230 _7,262 _8,492

Nonresident trips x % nonresident going to other destinations + resident trips x %residents going to other destinations

*(67952 trips x 4.3%) + (20297 trips x 5.3%) = 2922 + 1076 = 3998 trips

*(67952 trips x 17.5 %) + (20297 trips x 18.3%) = 11890 + 3714 = 15604 trips

_

 (19490 trips x 4.2%) + (5822 trips x 3.8%) = 916 + 314 = 1230 trips

_

 (19490 trips x 31.2%) + (5822 trips x 20.3%) = 6080 + 1182 = 7262 trips

Backcountry skiers could be displaced by not plowing the road from Colter Bay to Flagg Ranch.

Assume at most 5% of skier days: 160. In addition, the average annual number of winter

automobile travelers driving from Colter Bay to Flagg Ranch is approximately 23,000. This

traffic is mostly generated through Jackson to GTNP, and would not affect oversnow motorized

use on adjacent public lands.

AVAILABLE INFORMATION TO ASSESS EFFECTS OF WINTER USE

ALTERNATIVES ON ADJACENT NATIONAL FOREST LANDS

The NPS economic consultant, Bioeconomics, Inc., was requested to develop, to the extent

possible, estimates of the impact of policy changes within the parks on use of adjacent national
G-20

forest lands. An examination of the detailed responses to the 1999 YNP winter visitor survey

show that survey responses provide little data on alternative destinations within the GYA for

those who would shift GYA use under a winter management change. Survey responses do

however provide an overall picture of the impact of several possible management options on nonpark winter use levels in the GYA.

The main finding related to national forest lands is that there will not be an increase in use, but

rather a decrease, which makes the issue of where increases might occur somewhat moot. For

example, in the context of the estimated declines in visitation to the GYA under alternative G, the

estimated decline in visitation far outweighs the percentage of park visitors who would anticipate

shifting their use to other non-park GYA locations. Given that the typical park winter visitor

spends one day recreating in the park and several days recreating in the GYA outside of the park,

the winter survey results indicate that for alternative G any shift in park use to forest lands would

be outweighed by a general decline in use of forest lands under the alternative.

For the sake of completeness, Table 1 shows the percent of respondents in the YNP winter use

survey park sample who said that they would shift their destinations within the GYA under four

alternative management options. Clearly, only a small percentage of current winter users

anticipate a shift of use within the park under these options.

Table 1. Percent of current winter YNP visitors who would shift their destinations

within the GYA under alternative management options

Management option Park visitor sample

Non-GYA residents GYA residents

Plow road from West Yellowstone to Old Faithful 8.4% 6.4%

Allow only snowcoach, ski, or snowshoe access 4.2% 3.8%

Close west side roads to all vehicle access 4.3% 5.3%

Stop plowing road from Colter Bay to South Entrance 4.7% 5.4%

Those respondents who said that they would “visit the same amount to the GYA, but I would

make other destinations (GTNP, or specific sites on national forest lands) my primary destination

instead of YNP” were asked to list the specific other destinations that they would be most likely

to visit. The following table provides a comprehensive, verbatim, listing of the responses to this

question by all respondents in the park sample. Since only a small percentage of respondents said

that they would shift their use within the GYA, and only a subset of these listed alternative

destinations within the GYA, the resulting sample sizes are quite small and no clear pattern of the

impact of visitation shifts on individual forests is evident.
G-21

Alternative GYA destinations listed by respondents

to the 1999 winter visitor survey, by management option.

Policy of plowing the road from West Yellowstone to Old Faithful

Alternative GYA† Use Area Frequency Percent

BTNF*- Jackson ranger district 1 3.0

Beaver Cr., Lion's Head 1 3.0

Bonneville County 1 3.0

Dubois, Cooke City, Big Horn NF 1 3.0

GTNP‡ and the Parkway 9 27.2

Jackson Hole, Targhee, Snow King ski areas 3 9.0

Lamar Valley/Cooke City 4 12.1

Two Top 1 3.0

West Yellowstone 1 3.0

Continental divide trails 1 3.0

Don't want cars in the winter 1 3.0

Drive through the whole park 1 3.0

Forest Service Land 2 6.0

Island park 1 3.0

Lake area 1 3.0

Machine-free areas, if there are any left 1 3.0

Ski areas away from snowmobiles 1 3.0

The less car traffic the better 1 3.0

Wherever there are no snowmobiles 1 3.0

Policy of allowing only snowcoach, ski, or snowshoe access

Alternative Use Area Frequency Percent

Bridger/Teton 1 8.3

Cooke City/Beartooth Mountains 2 16.6

GTNP 1 8.3

Gallatin, Gravely, Beartooth Ranges 1 8.3

Idaho 1 8.3

Island Park 2 16.6

Shadow Mtn/Moose Island/Cache Creek 1 8.3

Teton Village/Kelly & Moose 1 8.3

Groomed trails not in the park 1 8.3

Snowmobile is prime way I choose to see parks 1 8.3

Policy of closing the west side of park to all vehicles in the winter

Alternative Use Area Frequency Percent

Dubois 1 10.0

GTNP 3 30.0

Idaho 1 10.0

Jackson 2 20.0

National forest 1 10.0

Other groomed trails not in the park 1 10.0

Outside park 1 10.0

Policy to stop plowing the road from Colter Bay to YNP South Entrance

Alternative Use Area Frequency Percent

GTNP 3 42.9

Idaho 1 14.3

Jackson Hole 1 14.3

Jackson Ranger District 1 14.3

Stay at south end to avoid snowmobiles 1 14.3

†Greater Yellowstone Area

*Bridger-Teton National Forest

‡Grand Teton National Park
APPENDIX H

RECREATION CARRYING CAPACITY

H-1

OVERVIEW AND FRAMEWORK FOR THE WINTER VISITOR CAPACITY ISSUE

IN THE GYA

The public land resource base is limited. There is a limit to the amount of use on a finite piece of

land, beyond which the values that bring people there begin to decline. Our experience in public

land management is to see this decline in resource values or qualities with no consequent

decrease in visitation or use. Expectations change, but what is critical is the expectation that the

visitor has relative to what she or he experiences routinely at home.

The concept of capacity is filtered through this expectational or experiential sieve, and usually

from our own geographic reference point. Capacity is therefore relative and dependent on a

variety of factors. One determinant of capacity is infrastructure. Parking lots, trails, and lodges

are built to accommodate certain numbers. When those numbers are exceeded, we begin to

experience resource damage and social confusion by overuse and overflow. We then build more

facilities, which over time also overflow. Within a finite land base, the inescapable conclusion is

that at some point our standards need to change or we overrun the very resource that people come

to enjoy. There are acknowledged examples of this in a number of national parks, including

Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Arches, and perhaps even in Yellowstone during the summer. We are

aware, anecdotally, of local people who no longer visit Yellowstone during the summer season

because of the traffic and the crowding.

From a practical standpoint, land management agencies do not have unlimited flexibility to add

infrastructure. This is both budget and resource driven. Infrastructure must be maintained, and

current budgets are not sympathetic to this need. From a resource standpoint, decaying

infrastructure cannot be allowed to degrade wildlife habitat or watershed integrity, for example.

There are other determinants of capacity, both technological and social. Communities and

industries are to be credited when they consider means of reducing the pollution potential of

snowmobiles, or making snowmobiles quieter. If pollution and noise are partial determinants of

capacity, reduction measures serve to increase capacity. It is an accepted premise that capacities

are greater for user groups that are educated, informed, and concerned about the impacts they

might cause. These groups tend to be self-limiting. Efficient systems that passively regulate the

flow of use in the national park or forest are also ways to affect capacity.

The conclusion to be made is that capacity for winter use in the GYA is limited, but actually

defining the capacity is a very complex issue. It involves many different interrelated factors, with

both a social and a resource orientation. In general, the factors that need to be considered

include:

• Types of use opportunities and experiences to be accommodated

• Physical expectations (settings and qualities) associated with different types of opportunities

• Social expectations associated with different types of opportunities (crowding, encounters,

solitude)

• Amount and suitability of lands necessary to provided different types of uses

• Proximity/accessibility of suitable lands for different uses that are incompatible
H-2

• Availability and suitability of other lands to provide similar experiences (or commercial

services)

• Technological aspects of modes of recreation transport desired

• Facilities available to accommodate use effectively

• Potential for developing access and facilities

• Availability of lands for commercially provided services vs. non-outfitted or guided

experiences

• Level of knowledge and expertise generally exercised by user groups

• Level of knowledge and assistance provided by commercial or administrative services

• Specific locations of lands suitable for use (settings and physical characteristics) in relation to

sensitive resources – for example streams, bald eagle nesting sites, thermal areas – or hazards

• Administrative capability to regulate the amount of use effectively

The structuring of the alternatives in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) provides

objectives, standards, and guidelines in many of these areas of consideration. The decision, in

selecting an alternative, will provide a mix of recreation opportunity prescriptions (zones) that are

located generally on a map. Each prescription or zone is defined by the desired resource

condition or character, the desired visitor experience, and amount of development that is

compatible with them. Further, each zone has a set of resource and visitor experience indicators

that would guide management through monitoring and evaluation. General standards are set in a

number of areas. Some alternatives allude to activities that would improve the parks’ interpretive

services and availability of information for visitors. Some alternatives generally prescribe

changes in winter use supporting facilities. Some alternatives close areas to use because of

sensitive resources. Once the final decision is made, there will be a framework with which to

begin the process of recreation capacity determination.

LITERATURE REVIEW OF CARRYING CAPACITY MODELS

Central to any land management objective is the underlying element of change. Change is

inevitable in any natural system. It has been well documented that even very low levels of use by

animals or humans can have a marked impact on the ecological regime (Frissell and Duncan

1965). In defining land management objectives, the fundamental question to be answered is not

whether to allow or eliminate change but how much change to allow.

Carrying capacity models assist natural resource managers to determine when a given land area is

receiving too much use. These models were originally developed by range and wildlife managers

to define the number of animals that can be maintained within a given amount of habitat (Burch

1981). Traditionally, carrying capacities were defined by three types or levels of use, minimum,

maximum, and optimal. Each level of use is based on different assumptions about the ecosystem

and the managed population.

In an attempt to determine appropriate human use levels, recreation managers began to use the

carrying capacity model to determine how much human use or recreation a landscape can

maintain. Unlike the simpler models used by range and wildlife biologists, recreational carrying

capacities were forced to undertake the enormous task of not only determining physical carrying

capacities, but human experiential capacities as well. Lime and Stankey (1986) have defined
H-3

recreational carrying capacity as “the character of use that can be supported over a specified time

by an area developed at a certain level without causing excessive damage to either the physical

environment or the experience of the visitor.” Typically, the carrying capacity framework

consists of two basic components, a descriptive component and an evaluative component. The

descriptive component uses objective data that describes how people behave in and affect a given

recreation system. Use levels, types of use, frequency of use, and season of use are all examples

of the descriptive component. The evaluative component is a value judgment, or more clearly

stated, a management objective that outlines specifically how much impact (ecological or social)

is too much for any given area.

Carrying capacities may be defined by four basic parameters: facilities, physical, ecological, and

social. These constraints provide an opportunity for recreation managers to make decision for

different management objectives or for different levels and types of impacts.

Physical and facility carrying capacities are determined simply by the amount of space that is

available in a given recreation setting. The ecological parameters of carrying capacity

determination are concerned with impacts to the plants, animals, soil, water, and air. Social

impacts focus on the level of use beyond which the recreational experience is negatively

impacted. The two main parameters of recreational carrying capacities are ecological and social.

For obvious reasons social impacts to recreation systems are the most difficult of the four

parameters to determine. While management objectives may clearly state the specific

management objectives for maintaining water quality, soil, and vegetation and may clearly define

the number and type of facilities that may occupy a given ground area, the determination of the

quality of user experience is elusive. In order to determine social impacts, human value

judgments are necessary. The quality of experience may be determined by such elements as type

of user, amount of use, location of encounter, number of other users encountered, and the size of

group encountered. In addition, recreationists generally choose the type of setting they prefer.

Users may also be “displaced”, or crowded out, by an increase in use level.1

It is often the judgment of land managers that an increase in human use is perceived by

recreational users as a negative impact. This is not always an accurate assumption. In a study of

Wisconsin deer hunters, two distinctly different groups of hunters were surveyed. Group one

indicated that a low level of contact with other hunters was preferable, with zero encounters

optimal. Group two indicated that encounters with other groups will increase their chances of

hunting success (by moving deer around) and so be perceived as favorable (Stankey 1973).

The quality of the user’s experience may be more directly related to the type and behavior of

other users encountered than by the level of use encountered. Recreationists are typically

bothered less by encounters with similar types of users. For example backpackers have been

 

1

 In the context of winter use, large issues surround the concept that increasing motorized use within the Greater

Yellowstone Area has largely displaced skiing and other nonmotorized visitors who have a different set of preferences.

The situation is difficult in that efforts or allocations to provide for nonmotorized uses could at this point displace

motorized users who feel that they have already lost too much available area to wilderness or wildlife “closures.”
H-4

found to be less bothered by multiple encounters with other backpackers than they are with

multiple encounters with horseback riders (Stankey 1980).

Because of the many social variables in any recreational social carrying capacity model the

framework is most useful as an ideological tool for land managers. Several problems exist in

recreational carrying capacity models that make them difficult to use in real world situations.

For example, of real world importance to recreation managers is the disparity between demand

and supply. With a dramatic increase in demand for a “motorized oversnow experience” and

little increase in land area with the ability to provide “opportunities for free and unconfined

motorized recreation” is not just difficult but, in some areas like national parks, impossible.

Inherent in any capacity model is the idea that there is a “magic number” that may be determined.

This idea suggests that somehow the landscape has the ability to withstand use (Stankey 1980).

The fact that there is often no linear relationship between quality of experience and level of use

further complicates the matter. Stankey (1984) agrees stating “carrying capacity models are a

management system directed towards maintenance and restoration of ecological and social

conditions defined as acceptable and appropriate in area management objectives it is not a system

directed toward manipulation of use levels per se.” Because of the elusive nature of defining a

level of use appropriate for a recreation experience, land managers often concentrate solely on the

impacts of recreation use on the ecological system and entirely avoid the experiential nature of

the use. Perhaps even more unfortunate are those managers, who rather than avoid the social

aspect of recreation management, spend an enormous amount of time and money trying to pin

down a finite capacity value. This approach as Grafe et al. (1986) pointed out that carrying

capacities are “meaningless unless it is expressed conditionally in relation to objectives that

specify capacity for what.”

LIMITS OF ACCEPTABLE CHANGE MODEL

An alternative model that is appropriate for specifically identifying land management objectives

is the Limits of Acceptable Change model (LAC) (Stankey et al. 1984). Unlike traditional

carrying capacity models the LAC accepts that change will inevitably occur. LAC is a broad

framework which uses problem identification and management solutions based on comparison of

site conditions and selected standards and guidelines. The LAC model removes itself from the

pursuit of the “magic number” or capacity value and focuses land management objectives on the

identification of problems through the use of public input, ecological assessment, external

influences, and administrative processes. Although there is some value judgment inherent in any

decision making process the LAC model allows land managers to make decisions based on

existing and desired future conditions (both ecological and social) of a specified land area. This

model has been put into practice by the Forest Service (USFS) in dealing with problems of

wilderness overuse.
H-5

VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND RESOURCE PROTECTION (VERP) FRAMEWORK

In 1992 the Park Service began developing the VERP framework to address visitor use

management and carrying capacity issues in the units of the national park system. VERP is based

on the LAC model and is one of the adaptations of it. A working definition of VERP is: “a

planning and management framework that focuses on visitor use impacts on the visitor

experiences and the park resources. These impacts are primarily attributable to visitor behavior,

use levels, types of use, timing of use, and location of use. There are nine elements that are

integral to the VERP framework:

1. Assemble an interdisciplinary project team.

2. Develop a public involvement strategy.

3. Develop statements of park purpose, significance, and primary interpretive themes;

identify planning constraints.

4. Analyze park resources and existing visitor use.

5. Describe a potential range of visitor experiences and resource conditions (potential

prescriptive zones).

6. Allocate the zones to specific locations in the park (prescriptive management

zoning).

7. Select indicators and specify standards for each zone; develop a monitoring plan.

8. Monitor resource and social indicators.

9. Take management action.

The Winter Use EIS is structured to facilitate this process. When a final alternative is selected

and implemented as a plan, steps one through seven will essentially have been accomplished.

Indicators and standards will need to be validated through monitoring for specific areas within the

parks.
APPENDIX I

MONITORING STANDARDS, METHODS, AND INTENSITY BY

MANAGEMENT ZONE

I-1

MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

The Winter Use Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Yellowstone

National Park (YNP), Grand Teton National Park (GTNP) and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr.,

Memorial Parkway (the Parkway) examines two approaches to assess the long term effects of

management actions on identified park values: general resource inventory and monitoring and

adaptive management. General resource inventory and monitoring in accordance with the

National Park Service (NPS) 77 Resource Management Guidelines (the NPS 1991) is common to

all alternatives. Adaptive management is a component of alternatives B and E. Alternative G

also includes the use of an adaptive approach in managing park resources. The two approaches

are distinguished by the degree of uncertainty regarding the impacts to park values. Adaptive

management is an appropriate approach when important information pertaining to natural

resource and visitor use management is lacking, and there is a need to take immediate

management action rather than to wait for additional information to be collected. It is a process

of implementing management decisions as scientifically driven experiments that test predictions

and assumptions in management plans, and using the resulting information to improve the plans

(Walters 1986).

The essential first step when formulating an adaptive management strategy for the affected

environment is to articulate the critical uncertainties, particularly where some information is

known about a specific resource but conclusive evidence is currently unavailable. Based on

current knowledge, a management scenario is then designed to test specific hypotheses relating to

the critical uncertainties or unknowns. Monitoring and evaluation strategies are then employed to

evaluate management outcomes relative to acceptable thresholds, and assist in the development

of management alternatives. Monitoring within the framework of adaptive management is

critical because of the uncertainty of predictions based on limited information. It provides for

systematic feedback for management, and allows adjustment of activities to mitigate unplanned

or undesirable outcomes.

Based on public scoping and the analysis presented in the DEIS, critical information needs

related to winter use were identified for several park values: air quality, natural quiet, wildlife,

and aspects of visitor experience. Adaptive management therefore will be issue-driven and based

on the direction provided by Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 as amended (see Appendix C)

and will focus primarily on the impact of winter visitor use on the values listed above. Both

adaptive management and monitoring require standards, or thresholds, to establish baselines upon

which to assess degradation to monitored park values. Thresholds generally pertain to state and

federal standards, inherent park values, or experiential values. Although Executive Orders 11644

and 11989 and their implementing regulation 36 CFR 2.18 direct the NPS to manage certain

resources for their protection, they provide little guidance as to acceptable thresholds.

Monitoring may help to determine appropriate thresholds where little information exists upon

which to make decisions related to degradation.

A critical step in adaptive management involves the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Each time a new management proposal is evaluated the analysis must be documented by
I-2

performing the appropriate level of NEPA compliance. Many of the adaptive management

provisions that are suggested in alternatives B, G, and E would not require that an additional

environmental assessment be completed. However, some actions, such as permanent road

closures to protect wildlife or the construction of new facilities may require an additional sitespecific NEPA analysis, which includes public scoping.

In contrast to the adaptive management provisions, general resource monitoring is a feature

common to all alternatives. General resource monitoring is used when adequate information

exists to make informed management decisions, and is the process of collecting information to

evaluate if the objectives of a management plan are being realized. General monitoring

techniques (as opposed to monitoring conducted within the adaptive management framework)

will be employed under all alternatives to assess impacts to public health and safety; geothermal

features; water quality; threatened and endangered species; trumpeter swans and some aspects of

visitor experience, including access and circulation. Ongoing monitoring programs will continue

and others will be implemented.

The adaptive management process is shown schematically in Figure 1. A series of tables follow

showing monitoring standards and methods for critical resources in each winter management

zone. Another series of tables conveys the same information as applied in an adaptive

management approach. With 11 management zones, there are 22 tables in all.
I-3

Figure 1. The Adaptive Management Process.

.

.

Identify Critical

Uncertainties

 (RESOURCE VALUES

AND INDICATORS)

Management Scenario Based

on Current Knowledge

(STANDARDS)

Monitoring and

Evaluation Strategies

(METHODS)

Reevaluate Standard

Or Threshold

Evaluate

Management Action

for Reducing Impact

Standard

Not OK

Continue Monitoring

Standard OK

Standard

Not Met

Standard

Met

Continue

Routine

Monitoring

NEPA

Check

NEPA

Check

Implement

New Method

Implement New

Management

Scenario
I-4

Table 1. Monitoring Standards, Methods, Intensity by Management Zone, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks

and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway Winter Use Plan.

Management

Zone 

1

Destination or Support Area

Resource

Value

Indicator Preliminary Standard Method Monitoring

Intensity*

Management Actions

Visibility State and federal air quality standards Time lapse video

Fixed site sampling of

particulate matter (PM 2.5, and

PM10)

High Establish vehicle carrying capacity

reduce vehicle numbers

Review annually

Fixed site sampling of PM and

carbon monoxide, and VOCs

High Establish vehicle carrying capacity

reduce vehicle numbers

Review annually

Air Quality

and Public

Health

Park workers and visitors

exposure to CO, particulate matter,

aldehydes, and VOCs

State and federal air quality standards

Personal samples for exposure

to aldehydes, VOCs, carbon

monoxide, and particulate

matter

High Reduce exposure to emissions

Reduce emissions

Review annually

Wildlife Bird and mammal habituation re;

effectiveness of garbage facilities

Garbage unavailable to wildlife Photo surveys, and observation High Increase or improve garbage security

Increase garbage storage

Review annually

Water/

Snowpack

Water quality: pH, hydrogen, ammonium,

calcium, sulfate, nitrate, and VOCs

State and federal water quality standards Surface water sampling

Snowpack sampling

Moderate Determination and application of best

management practices

Reduce emissions and vehicle numbers

Review annually

Safety Vehicle accidents and incidents Continual improvement

three-year sliding average

Incident descriptions and GIS

mapping

High Sign and reduce speed limits in areas of

recurring incidents

Increase law enforcement and information

programs in areas of concern

Review monthly

Geothermal

Features

Human-caused damage to geothermal areas No degradation of geothermal resources Remote sensing and visual

observation

High Increase enforcement and monitoring

Implement additional information programs

Restrict travel

Review monthly

Waiting lines Visitors wait no more than 5 minutes to

access restrooms and park information

Observation Moderate Increase facilities where possible

Increase information programs

Review annually

Perceptions of crowding at attraction sites Visitors are able to see, smell, and hear the

natural environment at popular attraction

sites such as Old Faithful or Jackson lake

Visitor survey High Establish carrying capacities

Review Every other year

Visitor

Experience

Visitor satisfaction with opportunities to

experience park values (wildlife viewing,

scenery, and clean air), affordable services,

and access to information

Visitors are highly satisfied with their park

experience

Visitor survey High Establish carrying capacities

Review Every other year

*High = Daily to weekly or in accordance with standard protocol for parameter; Moderate = Monthly to seasonally and during peak days or use periods; Low = Annually during peak use periods or at the end of the season.
I-5

Table 2. Monitoring Standards, Methods, Intensity by Management Zone, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks

and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway Winter Use Plan.

Management

Zone 

2

Plowed Road

Resource

Value

Indicator Preliminary Standard Method Monitoring

Intensity*

Management Actions

Visibility No degradation. State and Federal air

Quality standards

Photo survey

Fixed site sampling of PM

Moderate Establish vehicle carrying capacity

Review annually

Fixed site sampling of PM,

Carbon Monoxide

Air Quality

(Public

Health)

Park workers and visitors

exposure to CO, particulate matter,

aldehydes, and VOCs

State air quality standards

Personal samples for exposure

to aldehydes, VOCs, and

particulate matter

Moderate Establish vehicle carrying capacity

Review annually

Vehicle caused wildlife mortality No effect to population Sign and reduce speed limits in areas of

recurring incidents

Review monthly

Wildlife

Wildlife trapped by snow berms in road

corridor

No effect on population

Incident reports, roadside

surveys, and visual

observations

High

Increase number of exit berms – reevaluate

location of existing exits

Review weekly

Sound Distance and time human-caused sound is

audible

CFR for vehicle sound Audibility logging High Increase enforcement

Review annually

Water/

Snowpack

Water quality: pH, Hydrogen, Ammonium,

Calcium, Sulfate, Nitrate and VOCs

State and Federal water quality standards surface water sampling

Snowpack sampling

Moderate Establish vehicle carrying capacity

Determination and application of best

management practices

Review annually

Safety Motor vehicle accidents

Motorized vs. nonmotorized visitor conflict

Continuous improvement

three-year sliding average

Incident reports and GIS High Sign and reduce speed limits in areas of

recurring incidents

Increase law enforcement in areas of concern

Review monthly

Encounter rates Not to exceed 250 vehicles per hour for more

than 1 hour per day. Visitors are able to see,

smell, and hear the natural environment at

roadside pullouts and interpretive trails

Visitor survey High Establish carrying capacities/reduce visitor

numbers

Review every other year

Visitor

Experience

Visitor satisfaction levels with opportunities

to experience park values and opportunities

to view wildlife, scenery, and experience

clean air and solitude

Visitors are highly satisfied (+90%) with

their park experience

Visitor survey High Establish carrying capacities/

reduce visitor numbers

Review every other year

*High = Daily to weekly or in accordance with standard protocol for parameter; Moderate = Monthly to seasonally and during peak days or use periods; Low = Annually during peak use periods or at the end of the season.
I-6

Table 3. Monitoring Standards, Methods, Intensity by Management Zone, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks

and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway Winter Use Plan.

Management

Zone 

3

Groomed Motorized Route

Clean and Quiet

Resource

Value

Indicator Preliminary Standard Method Monitoring

Intensity*

Management Actions

Visibility No degradation. Area free of any visible sign

of human-caused pollutants at least 95% of

each 24-hour period

Photo survey

Fixed site sampling of PM,

Moderate Establish vehicle carrying capacity/

reduce vehicle numbers

Review annually

Fixed site sampling of PM and

carbon monoxide

Personal samples for exposure

to aldehydes, VOCs, and

particulate matter

Air Quality

(Public

Health)

Park workers and visitors

exposure to CO, particulate matter,

aldehydes, and VOCs

State and federal air quality standards

Establish exposure

measurements for snowcoaches

Moderate Establish vehicle carrying capacities

reduce vehicle numbers

Review annually

Wildlife mortalities caused by oversnow

vehicles

No effect on population Incident reports and roadside

surveys, photo surveys, and

visual observations

Low Sign and reduce speed limits in areas of

recurring incidents

Review annually

Wildlife harassment or displacement due to

vehicle sound or movements

No effect on population Incident reports and photo

surveys

High Increase law enforcement

Review monthly

Bison use of groomed surfaces No effect on population Photo surveys, air surveys, and

telemetry

Wildlife

Lynx habitat effectiveness No effect on population Carnivore and snowshoe hare

track surveys

High Close roads

Review annually

Sound Distance and time human-caused sound is

audible

CFR for vehicle sound Audibility logging Moderate Increase enforcement

Review annually

Water/

Snowpack

Water quality: pH, Hydrogen, Ammonium,

Calcium, Sulfate, Nitrate, and VOCs

State and Federal water quality standards

Snowpack sampling

Spring runoff surface water

sampling

Snowpack sampling

High Establish vehicle carrying capacity

Determination and application of best

management practices

Review annually

Safety Oversnow vehicle accidents Continuous improvement

three-year sliding average

Incident reports and GIS High Sign and reduce speed limits in areas of

recurring incidents.

Increase law enforcement in areas of concern

Review monthly

Encounter rates Not to exceed 250 vehicles per hour for more

than 1 hour per day. Visitors are able to see,

smell, and hear the natural environment at

roadside pullouts and interpretive trails

Visitor survey

Smoothness of groomed surface No worse than fair 20% of a 24-hour period Visual observation

High Establish carrying capacities

reduce visitor numbers

Review every other year

Visitor

Experience

Visitor satisfaction levels with opportunities

to experience park values and opportunities

to view wildlife, scenery, and experience

clean air and solitude.

Visitors are highly satisfied (+90%) with

their park experience

Visitor survey High Establish carrying capacities/reduce visitor

numbers

Review every other year

*High = Daily to weekly or in accordance with standard protocol for parameter; Moderate = Monthly to seasonally and during peak days or use periods; Low = Annually during peak use periods or at the end of the season.
I-7

Table 4. Monitoring Standards, Methods, Intensity by Management Zone, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks

and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway Winter Use Plan.

Management

Zone 

4

Groomed Motorized Route

Resource

Value Indicator Preliminary Standard Method MonitoringIntensity* Management Actions

Visibility No degradation. Area free of any visible sign

of human-caused pollutants at least 95% of

each 24-hour period

Photo survey and time lapse

video

Fixed site sampling of

particulate matter (PM 2.5, and

PM10)

High Establish vehicle carrying capacities/reduce

vehicle numbers

Implement new technologies

Review annually

Fixed site sampling of PM,

Carbon Monoxide

Personal samples for exposure

to aldehydes, VOCs, and

particulate matter

Air Quality

(Public

Health)

Park workers and visitors

exposure to CO, particulate matter,

aldehydes, and VOCs

State air quality standards

Establish exposure

measurements for snowcoaches

High Establish vehicle carrying capacities/reduce

vehicle numbers

Implement new technologies

Review annually

Wildlife mortalities caused by oversnow

vehicles

No effect on population Incident reports and roadside

surveys, photo surveys, and

visual observations

Low Sign and reduce speed limits in areas of

recurring incidents

Review monthly

Wildlife harassment No effect on population Incident reports and photo

surveys

High Increase law enforcement

Review annually

Bison use of groomed surfaces No effect on population Photo and air surveys High

Wildlife

Lynx habitat effectiveness No effect on population Carnivore and snowshoe hare

track surveys

High

Mitigate effects or close roads to grooming

Review annually

Sound Distance and time human-caused sound is

audible

CFR for vehicle sound Audibility logging High Increase enforcement

Review annually

Water/

Snowpack

Water quality: pH, Hydrogen, Ammonium,

Calcium, Sulfate, Nitrate, and VOCs

State and Federal water quality standards Spring runoff surface water

sampling

Snowpack sampling

High Determination and application of best

management practices

Reduce emissions

Implement or require new technologies

Review annually

Safety Oversnow vehicle accidents Continuous improvement

three-year sliding scale

Incident reports and GIS High Sign and reduce speed limits in areas of

recurring incidents. Increase law

enforcement in areas of concern.

Encounter rates Visitors are able to see, smell, and hear the

natural environment at roadside pullouts and

interpretive trails

Visitor survey Establish carrying capacities/reduce visitor

numbers

Review every other year

Smoothness of groomed surface No worse than fair 20% of a 24-hour period Visual observation

High

Improve or increase grooming

Reduce visitor numbers

Review annually

Visitor

Experience

Visitor satisfaction levels with opportunities

to experience park values and opportunities

to view wildlife, scenery, and experience

clean air and solitude.

Visitors are highly satisfied (+90%) with

their park experience

Visitor survey High Establish carrying capacities/reduce visitor

numbers

Review every other year

*High = Daily to weekly or in accordance with standard protocol for parameter; Moderate = Monthly to seasonally and during peak days or use periods; Low = Annually during peak use periods or at the end of the season.
I-8

Table 5. Monitoring Standards, Methods, Intensity by Management Zone, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks

and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway Winter Use Plan.

Management

Zone 

5

Groomed Motorized Trail Clean and Quiet

Resource

Value Indicator Preliminary Standard Method MonitoringIntensity* Management Actions

Visibility No degradation. Area free of any visible sign

of human-caused pollutants

Photo survey Low Establish vehicle carrying capacity/reduce

vehicle numbers

Review annually

Fixed site sampling of

particulate matter (PM 2.5, and

PM10)

carbon monoxide

Air Quality

(Public

Health)

Park workers and visitors

exposure to CO, particulate matter,

aldehydes, and VOCs

State air quality standards

Personal samples for exposure

to aldehydes, VOCs, and

particulate matter

Low Establish vehicle carrying capacity/reduce

vehicle numbers

Review annually

Wildlife mortalities caused by oversnow

vehicles

No effect on population Incident reports and roadside

surveys, photo surveys, and

visual observations

Low Sign and reduce speed limits in areas of

recurring incidents

Review monthly

Wildlife harassment No effect on population Incident reports and photo

surveys

High Increase law enforcement

Review annually

Bison use of groomed surfaces No effect on population Photo and air surveys Low

Wildlife

Lynx habitat effectiveness No effect on population Carnivore and snowshoe hare

track surveys

High

Close trail

Review annually

Sound Distance and time human-caused sound is

audible

CFR for vehicle sound Audibility logging High Increase law enforcement

Review annually

Water/

Snowpack

Surface water sampling of

pH, Hydrogen, Ammonium, Calcium,

Sulfate, Nitrate, and VOCs

State and Federal water quality standards Spring runoff surface water

sampling

High Determination and application of best

management practices

Reduce vehicle numbers

Implement or require new technologies

Review annually

Oversnow vehicle accidents

Safety Conflicts between motorized and

nonmotorized use

Continuous improvement

three-year sliding scale

Incident reports and GIS High Sign and reduce speed limits in areas of

recurring incidents. Increase law

enforcement in areas of concern.

Review monthly

Encounter rates Not to exceed 16 to 20 parties per day 80%

of the time.

Visitors are able to see, smell, and hear the

natural environment at roadside pullouts and

interpretive trails

Visitor survey High Establish carrying capacity/reduce visitor

numbers

Review every other year

Smoothness of groomed surface No worse than fair 30% of the winter season Visual observation Low Improve or increase grooming

Reduce vehicle numbers

Review annually

Visitor

Experience

Visitor satisfaction levels with opportunities

to experience park values and opportunities

to view wildlife, scenery, and experience

clean air and solitude.

Visitors are highly satisfied (+90%) with

their park experience

Visitor survey High Reduce visitor numbers

Review every other year

*High = Daily to weekly or in accordance with standard protocol for parameter; Moderate = Monthly to seasonally and during peak days or use periods; Low = Annually during peak use periods or at the end of the season.
I-9

Table 6. Monitoring Standards, Methods, Intensity by Management Zone, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks

and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway Winter Use Plan.

Management

Zone 

6

Groomed Motorized Trail

Resource

Value Indicator Preliminary Standard Method MonitoringIntensity* Management Actions

Visibility No degradation. Area free of any visible sign

of human-caused pollutants

Photo survey Low Establish vehicle carrying capacity/reduce

vehicle numbers

Review annually

Fixed site sampling of

particulate matter (PM 2.5, and

PM10)

Carbon Monoxide

Air Quality

(Public Health)

Park workers and visitors

exposure to CO, particulate matter,

aldehydes, and VOCs

State air quality standards

Personal samples for exposure

to aldehydes, VOCs, and

particulate matter

Low Establish vehicle carrying capacity/reduce

vehicle numbers

Review annually

Wildlife mortalities caused by oversnow

vehicles

No effect on population Incident reports and roadside

surveys, photo surveys, and

visual observations

Low Sign and reduce speed limits in areas of

recurring incidents

Review monthly

Wildlife harassment No effect on population Incident reports and photo

surveys

Low Increase law enforcement

Review annually

Bison use of groomed surfaces No effect on population Photo and air surveys Low

Wildlife

Lynx habitat effectiveness No effect on population Carnivore and snowshoe hare

track surveys

High

Close trail

Review annually

Sound Distance and time human-caused sound is

audible

CFR for vehicle sound Audibility logging High Increase law enforcement

Review annually

Water/

Snowpack

Surface water sampling of

pH, Hydrogen, Ammonium, Calcium,

Sulfate, Nitrate, and VOCs

State and Federal water quality standards Spring runoff surface water

sampling

Low Determination and application of best

management practices

Reduce vehicle numbers

Implement or require new technologies

Review annually

Safety Oversnow vehicle accidents

Conflicts between motorized and

nonmotorized use

Continuous improvement

three-year sliding scale

Incident reports and GIS High Sign and reduce speed limits in areas of

recurring incidents. Increase law

enforcement in areas of concern.

Review monthly

Encounter rates Not to exceed 16 to 20 parties per day 80%

of the time.

Visitors are able to see, smell, and hear the

natural environment at roadside pullouts and

interpretive trails

Visitor survey High Establish carrying capacity/reduce visitor

numbers

Review every other year

Smoothness of groomed surface No worse than fair 30% of the winter season Visual observation Low Improve or increase grooming

Reduce vehicle numbers

Review annually

Visitor

Experience

Visitor satisfaction levels with opportunities

to experience park values and opportunities

to view wildlife, scenery, and experience

clean air and solitude.

Visitors are highly satisfied (+90%) with

their park experience

Visitor survey High Reduce visitor numbers

Review every other year

*High = Daily to weekly or in accordance with standard protocol for parameter; Moderate = Monthly to seasonally and during peak days or use periods; Low = Annually during peak use periods or at the end of the season.
I-10

Table 7. Monitoring Standards, Methods, Intensity by Management Zone, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks

and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway Winter Use Plan.

Management

Zone 

7

Ungroomed Motorized Trail

Resource

Value Indicator Preliminary Standard Method MonitoringIntensity* Management Actions

Visibility No degradation. Area free of any visible sign

of human-caused pollutants

Photo survey and time lapse

video

Fixed site sampling of

particulate matter (PM 2.5, and

PM10)

Low Establish vehicle carrying capacity

/reduce vehicle numbers

Review annually

Fixed site sampling of

particulate matter (PM 2.5, and

PM10)

Carbon Monoxide

Air Quality

(Public Health)

Park workers and visitors

exposure to CO, particulate matter,

aldehydes, and VOCs

State air quality standards

Personal samples for exposure

to aldehydes, VOCs, and

particulate matter

Low Establish vehicle carrying capacity

/reduce vehicle numbers

Review annually

Wildlife mortalities caused by oversnow

vehicles

No effect on population Incident reports and roadside

surveys, photo surveys, and

visual observations

Low Sign and reduce speed limits in areas of

recurring incidents

Review monthly

Wildlife harassment No effect on population Incident reports and photo

surveys

Low Increase law enforcement

Review annually

Wildlife

Lynx habitat effectiveness No effect on population Carnivore and snowshoe hare

track surveys

High Close trail

Review annually

Sound Distance and time human-caused sound is

audible

CFR for vehicle sound Audibility logging High Increase law enforcement

Review annually

Water/

Snowpack

Surface water sampling of

pH, Hydrogen, Ammonium, Calcium,

Sulfate, Nitrate, and VOCs

State and Federal water quality standards Spring runoff surface water

sampling

Low Determination and application of best

management practices

Reduce vehicle numbers

Implement or require new technologies

Review annually

Safety Oversnow vehicle accidents

Conflicts between motorized and

nonmotorized use

Continuous improvement

three-year sliding scale

Incident reports and GIS Low Sign and reduce speed limits in areas of

recurring incidents.

Increase law enforcement in areas of concern

Review monthly

Encounter rates Not to exceed 16 to 20 parties per day 80%

of the time.

Visitors are able to see, smell, and hear the

natural environment at roadside pullouts and

interpretive trails

Visitor survey Low Establish carrying capacity/reduce visitor

numbers

Review every other year

Visitor

Experience

Visitor satisfaction levels with opportunities

to experience park values and opportunities

to view wildlife, scenery, and experience

clean air and solitude

Visitors are highly satisfied (+90%) with

their park experience

Visitor survey Low Establish carrying capacities/

reduce visitor numbers

Review every other year

*High = Daily to weekly or in accordance with standard protocol for parameter; Moderate = Monthly to seasonally and during peak days or use periods; Low = Annually during peak use periods or at the end of the season.
I-11

Table 8. Monitoring Standards, Methods, Intensity by Management Zone, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks

and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway Winter Use Plan.

Management

Zone 

8

Groomed Nonmotorized Trail

Resource

Value Indicator Preliminary Standard Method MonitoringIntensity* Management Actions

Visibility No degradation. Area free of any visible sign

of human-caused pollutants

Photo survey Low Establish vehicle carrying capacity/

reduce vehicle numbers

Review annually

Fixed site sampling of

particulate matter (PM 2.5, and

PM10)

Carbon Monoxide

Air Quality

(Public Health)

Park workers and visitors

exposure to CO, particulate matter,

aldehydes, and VOCs

State air quality standards

Personal samples for exposure

to aldehydes, VOCs, and

particulate matter

Low Establish vehicle carrying capacity/

reduce vehicle numbers

Review annually

Wildlife harassment No effect on population Incident reports and photo

surveys

Low Increase law enforcement and information

programs

Review annually

Wildlife

Lynx habitat effectiveness No effect on population Carnivore and snowshoe hare

track surveys

High Close trail

Review annually

Sound Distance and time human-caused sound is

audible

CFR for vehicle sound Audibility logging High Increase law enforcement

Review annually

Water/

Snowpack

Surface water sampling of

pH, Hydrogen, Ammonium, Calcium,

Sulfate, Nitrate, and VOCs

State and Federal water quality standards Spring runoff surface water

sampling

Low Determination and application of best

management practices

Reduce vehicle numbers

Implement or require new technologies

Review annually

Safety Conflicts between motorized and

nonmotorized use

Search and rescue

Human and wildlife conflicts

Continuous improvement

three-year sliding scale

Incident reports and GIS Low Increase law enforcement and information

programs in areas of concern

Review monthly

Encounter rates Not to exceed 10 to 15 parties per day over

70% of the use season.

Visitors are able to see, smell, and hear the

natural environment at roadside pullouts and

interpretive trails

Visitor survey Low Establish carrying capacity/

reduce visitor numbers

Review every other year

Smoothness of groomed surface No worse than fair 30% of the winter season Visual observation Low Improve or increase grooming

Reduce vehicle numbers

Review annually

Visitor

Experience

Visitor satisfaction levels with opportunities

to experience park values and opportunities

to view wildlife, scenery, and experience

clean air and solitude.

Visitors are highly satisfied (+90%) with

their park experience

Visitor survey Low Establish carrying capacities/

reduce visitor numbers

Review every other year

*High = Daily to weekly or in accordance with standard protocol for parameter; Moderate = Monthly to seasonally and during peak days or use periods; Low = Annually during peak use periods or at the end of the season.
I-12

Table 9. Monitoring Standards, Methods, Intensity by Management Zone, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks

and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway Winter Use Plan.

Management

Zone 

9

Ungroomed Nonmotorized Trail or Area

Resource

Value Indicator Preliminary Standard Method MonitoringIntensity* Management Actions

Air Quality

(Public Health)

Visibility No degradation. Area free of any visible sign

of human-caused pollutants

Photo survey and time lapse

video

Fixed site sampling of

particulate matter (PM 2.5, and

PM10)

Moderate Establish vehicle carrying capacity/

reduce vehicle numbers

Review annually

Wildlife harassment No effect on population Incident reports and photo

surveys

Moderate Increase law enforcement and information

programs

Review annually

Human and grizzly bear conflicts during preor post denning periodNo incidents Mapping of denning areas High Increase law enforcement and information

programs

Close denning areas to human use in fall and

spring

Review annually

Wildlife

Lynx habitat effectiveness No effect on population Carnivore and snowshoe hare

track surveys

High Close trail

Review annually

Sound Distance and time human-caused sound is

audible

CFR for vehicle sound Audibility logging High Increase law enforcement

Review annually

Water/

Snowpack

Surface water sampling of

pH, Hydrogen, Ammonium, Calcium,

Sulfate, Nitrate, and VOCs

State and Federal water quality standards Spring runoff surface water

sampling

Low Determination and application of best

management practices

Review annually

Safety Conflicts between motorized and

nonmotorized use

Search and rescue

Human and wildlife conflicts

Continuous improvement

three-year sliding scale

Incident reports and GIS High Increase law enforcement and information

programs in areas of concern

Review monthly

Encounter rates Not to exceed 10 to 15 parties per day over

70% of the use season.

Visitors are able to see, smell, and hear the

natural environment at roadside pullouts and

interpretive trails

Visitor survey Low Establish carrying capacity/

reduce visitor numbers

Review every other year

Visitor

Experience

Visitor satisfaction levels with opportunities

to experience park values and opportunities

to view wildlife, scenery, and experience

clean air and solitude

Visitors are highly satisfied (+90%) with

their park experience

Visitor survey Low Establish carrying capacities/

reduce visitor numbers

Review every other year

*High = Daily to weekly or in accordance with standard protocol for parameter; Moderate = Monthly to seasonally and during peak days or use periods; Low = Annually during peak use periods or at the end of the season.
I-13

Table 10. Monitoring Standards, Methods, Intensity by Management Zone, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks

and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway Winter Use Plan.

Management

Zone 

10

Backcountry Nonmotorized Trail or Area

Resource

Value Indicator Preliminary Standard Method MonitoringIntensity* Management Actions

Air Quality

(Public Health)

Visibility No degradation. Area free of any visible sign

of human-caused pollutants

Photo survey and time lapse

video

Fixed site sampling of

particulate matter (PM 2.5, and

PM10)

Moderate Establish vehicle carrying capacity/

reduce vehicle numbers

Review annually

Wildlife harassment No effect on population Incident reports and photo

surveys, and observation

Moderate Increase law enforcement and information

programs

Review annually

Human and grizzly bear conflicts during preor post denning periodNo incidents Mapping of denning areas

Incident reports

High Increase law enforcement and information

programs

Close denning areas to human use in fall and

spring

Review annually

Wildlife

Lynx habitat effectiveness No effect on population Carnivore and snowshoe hare

track surveys

High Close trail

Review annually

Sound Distance and time human-caused sound is

audible

CFR for vehicle sound Audibility logging High Increase law enforcement

Review annually

Water/

Snowpack

Surface water sampling of

pH, Hydrogen, Ammonium, Calcium,

Sulfate, Nitrate, and VOCs

State and Federal water quality standards Spring runoff surface water

sampling

Snowpack sampling

Moderate Determination and application of best

management practices

Implement or require new technologies

Review annually

Safety Search and rescue

Human and wildlife conflicts

Continuous improvement

three-year sliding scale

Incident reports and GIS High Increase law enforcement and information

programs in areas of concern

Review monthly

Encounter rates Not to exceed 5 to 10 parties per day over

80% of the use season.

Visitors are able to see, smell, and hear the

natural environment and experience quiet and

solitude

Visitor survey Low Establish carrying capacity/reduce visitor

numbers

Review every other year

Visitor

Experience

Visitor satisfaction levels with opportunities

to experience park values and opportunities

to view wildlife, scenery, and experience

clean air and solitude

Visitors are highly satisfied (+90%) with

their park experience

Visitor survey Low Establish carrying capacities/reduce visitor

numbers

Review every other year

*High = Daily to weekly or in accordance with standard protocol for parameter; Moderate = Monthly to seasonally and during peak days or use periods; Low = Annually during peak use periods or at the end of the season.
I-14

Table 11. Monitoring Standards, Methods, Intensity by Management Zone, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks

and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway Winter Use Plan.

Management

Zone 

11

Sensitive Resource Area

Resource

Value Indicator Preliminary Standard Method MonitoringIntensity* Management Actions

Air Quality

(Public Health)

Visibility/Success of closure No degradation Photo survey and time lapse

video

Fixed site sampling of

particulate matter (PM 2.5, and

PM10)

Moderate Evaluate success of closure

Review annually

Wildlife harassment No incidents Incident reports and photo

surveys, and observation

Moderate Evaluate success of closure

Review annually

Human and grizzly bear conflicts during preor post denning period/ closureNo incidents Mapping of denning areas

Incident reports

High Evaluate success of closure

Review annually

Wildlife

Lynx habitat effectiveness No effect on population Carnivore and snowshoe hare

track surveys

High Evaluate success of closure

Review annually

Water/

Snowpack

Surface water sampling of

pH, Hydrogen, Ammonium, Calcium,

Sulfate, Nitrate, and VOCs

State and Federal water quality standards Spring runoff surface water

sampling

Snowpack sampling

Moderate Evaluate success of closure

Review annually

Safety Search and rescue

Human and wildlife conflicts

No incidents Incident reports and GIS High Evaluate success of closure

Review annually

*High = Daily to weekly or in accordance with standard protocol for parameter; Moderate = Monthly to seasonally and during peak days or use periods; Low = Annually during peak use periods or at the end of the season.
I-15

Table 12. Adaptive Management Indicators, Standards, and Methods by Management Zone, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks

and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway Winter Use Plan.

Management

Zone 

1

Destination or Support Area

Resource

Value Indicator Standard Preliminary Method MonitoringIntensity* Management Actions

Odor Area free of odor of human-caused pollutants

not less than 90% of a given 24-hour period

Park visitor survey High Implement or require new technologies

Reduce vehicle numbers/

reduce carrying capacity

Air Quality

Visibility No degradation. Area free of any visible sign

of human-caused pollutants not less than

95% of a each 24-hour period

Particulate matter not to exceed

Photo survey and time lapse

video

Fixed site sampling of

particulate matter (PM 2.5, and

PM10).

High Implement or require new technologies

Reduce vehicle numbers/

reduce carrying capacity

Sound Distance and time human-caused sound is

audible

% time vehicles audible at attraction sites not

to exceed 50%

Audibility logging High Implement or require new technologies

Reduce vehicle numbers/

reduce carrying capacity

Water/

Snowpack

Water quality: pH, Hydrogen, Ammonium,

Calcium, Sulfate, Nitrate, and VOCs

State and federal water quality standards Spring runoff surface water

sampling

Snowpack sampling

Moderate Determination and application of best

management practices

Implement or require new technologies

Reduce vehicle numbers/

reduce carrying capacity

Perceptions of crowding at attraction sites Visitors are able to see, smell, and hear the

natural environment at popular attraction

sites such as Old Faithful or Jackson lake

Visitor survey and

Encounter rates

High Establish carrying capacity

Reduce visitor numbers

Visitor

Experience

Visitor satisfaction with opportunities to

experience park values (wildlife viewing,

scenery and clean air) affordable services and

access to information.

Visitors are highly satisfied with their park

experience

Visitor survey High Establish carrying capacity

Reduce visitor numbers

*High = Daily to weekly or in accordance with standard protocol for parameter; Moderate = Monthly to seasonally and during peak days or use periods; Low = Annually during peak use periods or at the end of the season.
I-16

Table 13. Adaptive Management Indicators, Standards, and Methods by Management Zone, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks

and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway Winter Use Plan.

Management

Zone 

2

Plowed Road

Resource

Value Indicator Preliminary Standard Method MonitoringIntensity* Management Actions

Odor Area free of any noticeable odor of humancaused pollutants at least 90% of each 24-

hour period

Park visitor survey Moderate Implement or require new technologies

Reduce emissions and carrying capacity

Air Quality

(Public Health)

Visibility No degradation. Area free of any visible sign

of human-caused pollutants at least 95% of

each 24-hour period

Photo survey and time lapse

video

Fixed site sampling of

particulate matter (PM 2.5, and

PM10).

Moderate Implement or require new technologies

Reduce emissions and carrying capacity

Vehicle caused wildlife mortality No significant adverse effects Incident reports, roadside

surveys, GIS, and visual

observations

High Sign and reduce speed limits in areas of

recurring incidents

Bison movements on plowed roads No significant adverse effects Continue bison monitoring

flights and photo surveys

High Evaluate alternate transportation system

Close roads

Wildlife harassment or displacement due to

vehicle sound or movements

No significant adverse effects Incident reports and photo

surveys

High Increase law enforcement and information

programs

Close areas to use

Wildlife

Wildlife trapped by snow berms in road

corridor

No significant adverse effects Incident reports, roadside

surveys, and visual

observations

High Increase number of exit berms – reevaluate

location of existing exits

Evaluate alternate transportation system

Sound Distance and time human-caused sound is

audible

Time vehicles audible at 100’ distance not to

exceed 50 %

Audibility logging High Implement or require new technologies

Reduce sound emissions and vehicle

numbers

Water/

Snowpack

Water quality: pH, Hydrogen, Ammonium,

Calcium, Sulfate, Nitrate, and VOCs

State and federal water quality standards Spring runoff surface water

sampling

Snowpack sampling

Moderate Determination and application of best

management practices

Implement or require new technologies

Establish vehicle carrying capacity

Perceptions of crowding Visitors are able to see, smell, and hear the

natural environment at roadside pullouts and

interpretive trails

Visitor survey

Encounter rates

High Establish visitor carrying capacity/reduce

visitor numbers

Visitor

Experience

Visitor satisfaction levels with opportunities

to experience park values and opportunities

to view wildlife, scenery, and experience

clean air and solitude.

Visitors are highly satisfied (+90%) with

their park experience

Visitor survey High Establish visitor carrying capacity/reduce

visitor numbers

*High = Daily to weekly or in accordance with standard protocol for parameter; Moderate = Monthly to seasonally and during peak days or use periods; Low = Annually during peak use periods or at the end of the season.
I-17

Table 14. Adaptive Management Indicators, Standards and Methods by Management Zone, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks

and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway Winter Use Plan.

Management

Zone 

3

Groomed Motorized Route

Clean and Quiet

Resource

Value Indicator Preliminary Standard Method MonitoringIntensity* Management Actions

Odor Area free of any noticeable odor of humancaused pollutants at least 90% of each 24-

hour period

Park visitor survey Moderate Implement or require new technologies

Reduce emissions and carrying capacity

Air Quality

(Public Health)

Visibility No degradation. Area free of any visible sign

of human-caused pollutants at least 95% of

each 24-hour period

Photo survey and time lapse

video

Fixed site sampling of

particulate matter (PM 2.5, and

PM10).

Moderate Implement or require new technologies

Reduce emissions and carrying capacity

Wildlife mortalities caused by oversnow

vehicles

No significant adverse effects Incident reports, roadside

surveys, photo surveys, and

visual observations

Low

Wildlife harassment or displacement due to

vehicle sound or movements

No significant adverse effects Incident reports, photo surveys,

and visual observation

High

Sign and reduce speed limits in areas of

recurring incidents

Increase law enforcement and information

programs

Close areas to use

Bison use of groomed surfaces No significant adverse effects Photo surveys, air surveys, and

telemetry

Wildlife

Lynx habitat effectiveness No significant adverse effects Carnivore and snowshoe hare

track surveys

High Eliminate grooming operations

Close roads

Sound Distance and time human-caused sound is

audible

Time vehicles audible at 100’ distance not to

exceed 50 %

Audibility logging Moderate Implement new technologies

Reduce sound emissions or reduce vehicle

numbers

Water/

Snowpack

Water quality: pH, Hydrogen, Ammonium,

Calcium, Sulfate, Nitrate, and VOCs

State and federal water quality standards Spring runoff surface water

sampling

Snowpack sampling

High Determination and application of best

management practices

Implement or require new technologies

Reduce vehicle emissions and carrying

capacity

Perceptions of crowding Visitors are able to see, smell, and hear the

natural environment at roadside pullouts and

interpretive trails

Visitor survey

Encounter rates

High Establish visitor carrying capacities

Reduce visitor numbers

Smoothness of groomed surface No worse than fair 20% of a 24-hour period Visual observation Increase grooming1

Reduce vehicle numbers when threshold

temperature is reached

Visitor

Experience

Visitor satisfaction levels with opportunities

to experience park values and opportunities

to view wildlife, scenery, and experience

clean air and solitude.

Visitors are highly satisfied (+90%) with

their park experience

Visitor survey High Establish visitor carrying capacities

Reduce visitor numbers

*High = Daily to weekly or in accordance with standard protocol for parameter; Moderate = Monthly to seasonally and during peak days or use periods; Low = Annually during peak use periods or at the end of the season.

1Mogul study to determine temperature and vehicle numbers for this management action is ongoing (Alger and Gwaltney 2000).
I-18

Table 15. Adaptive Management Indicators, Standards and Methods and by Management Zone, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks

and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway Winter Use Plan.

Management

Zone 

4

Groomed Motorized Route

Resource

Value Indicator Preliminary Standard Method MonitoringIntensity* Management Actions

Visibility No degradation. Area free of any visible sign

of human-caused pollutants at least 95% of

each 24-hour period

Photo survey and time lapse

video

Fixed site sampling of

particulate matter (PM 2.5, and

PM10).

High Implement or require new technologies

Reduce emissions and carrying capacity

Air Quality

(Public Health)

Odor Area free of any noticeable odor of humancaused pollutants at least 95% of each 24-

hour period

Visitor survey Moderate Implement or require new technologies

Reduce emissions and carrying capacity

Wildlife mortalities caused by oversnow

vehicles

No significant adverse effects Incident reports and roadside

surveys, photo surveys, and

visual observations

Low

Wildlife harassment or displacement due

to vehicle sound or movements

No significant adverse effects Incident reports and photo

surveys

High

Sign and reduce speed limits in areas of

recurring incidents

Increase law enforcement and information

programs

Close areas to use

Increase law enforcement

Bison use of groomed surfaces No significant adverse effects Photo and air surveys High

Wildlife

Lynx habitat effectiveness No significant adverse effects Carnivore and snowshoe hare

track surveys

High

Eliminate road grooming operations

Close roads

Sound Distance and time human-caused sound is

audible

Time vehicles audible at 100’ distance not to

exceed 50 %

Audibility logging High Require or implement new technologies

Reduce vehicle emissions or reduce vehicle

numbers

Water/

Snowpack

Water quality: pH, Hydrogen,

Ammonium, Calcium, Sulfate, Nitrate,

and VOCs

State and federal water quality standards Spring runoff surface water

sampling

Snowpack sampling

High Determination and application of best

management

Require or implement new technologies

Reduce vehicle emissions or reduce vehicle

numbers

Perceptions of crowding Visitors are able to see, smell, and hear the

natural environment at roadside pullouts and

interpretive trails

Visitor survey

Encounter rates

Establish visitor carrying capacities/

reduce visitor numbers

Smoothness of groomed surface No worse than fair 20% of a 24-hour period Visual observation

High

Groom more frequently

Reduce vehicle numbers when threshold

temperature is reached1

Visitor

Experience

Visitor satisfaction levels with

opportunities to experience park values

and opportunities to view wildlife,

scenery, and experience clean air and

solitude

Visitors are highly satisfied (+90%) with

their park experience

Visitor survey High Establish visitor carrying capacities/reduce

visitor numbers

*High = Daily to weekly or in accordance with standard protocol for parameter; Moderate = Monthly to seasonally and during peak days or use periods; Low = Annually during peak use periods or at the end of the season.

1Mogul study to determine temperature and vehicle numbers for this management action is ongoing (Alger and Gwaltney 2000).
I-19

Table 16. Adaptive Management Indicators, Standards and Methods by Management Zone, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks

and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway Winter Use Plan.

Management

Zone 

5

Groomed Motorized Trail

Clean and Quiet

Resource

Value Indicator Preliminary Standard Method MonitoringIntensity* Management Action

Odor Area free of any noticeable odor of humancaused pollutantsPark visitor survey Low Implement or require new technologies

Reduce emissions and carrying capacity

Air Quality

(Public Health)

Visibility No degradation. Area free of any visible sign

of human-caused pollutants

Photo survey and time lapse

video

Fixed site sampling of

particulate matter (PM 2.5, and

PM10).

Low Implement or require new technologies

Reduce emissions and carrying capacity

Wildlife harassment or displacement from

habitat as a result of vehicle sound or

movements

No significant adverse effects Incident reports and photo

surveys, and visual

observations

High Sign and reduce speed limits in areas of

recurring incidents

Increase law enforcement and information

programs

Close areas to use

Bison use of groomed surfaces No significant adverse effects Photo and air surveys Low

Wildlife

Lynx habitat effectiveness No significant adverse effects Carnivore and snowshoe hare

track surveys

High

Eliminate grooming operations

Mitigate effects or close trail

Sound Distance and time human-caused sound is

audible

Time vehicles audible at 100’ distance not to

exceed 25 %

Audibility logging High Implement or require new technologies

Reduce vehicle emissions and carrying

capacity

Water Quality/

Snowpack

Water quality: pH, Hydrogen, Ammonium,

Calcium, Sulfate, Nitrate, and VOCs

State and federal water quality standards Spring runoff surface water

sampling

Snowpack sampling

High Determination and application of best

management practices

Implement or require new technologies

Reduce vehicle emissions and carrying

capacity

Perceptions of crowding Visitors are able to see, smell, and hear the

natural environment at roadside pullouts and

interpretive trails. Moderate levels of

solitude and quiet available

Visitor survey

Encounter rates

High Establish visitor carrying capacities

Reduce visitor numbers

Smoothness of groomed surface No worse than fair 30% of the winter season Visual observation Low Increase grooming

Reduce vehicle numbers when threshold

temperature is reached1

Visitor

Experience

Visitor satisfaction levels with opportunities

to experience park values and opportunities

to view wildlife, scenery, and experience

clean air and solitude.

Visitors are highly satisfied (+90%) with

their park experience

Visitor survey High Establish visitor carrying capacities

Reduce visitor numbers

*High = Daily to weekly or in accordance with standard protocol for parameter; Moderate = Monthly to seasonally and during peak days or use periods; Low = Annually during peak use periods or at the end of the season.

1Mogul study to determine temperature and vehicle numbers for this management action is ongoing (Alger and Gwaltney 2000).
I-20

Table 17. Adaptive Management Indicators, Standards and Methods by Management Zone, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks

and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway Winter Use Plan.

Management

Zone 

6

Groomed Motorized Trail

Resource

Value Indicator Preliminary Standard Method MonitoringIntensity* Management Action

Odor Area free of any noticeable odor of humancaused pollutantsPark visitor survey Low Implement or require new technologies

Reduce emissions and carrying capacity

Air Quality

(Public Health)

Visibility No degradation. Area free of any visible sign

of human-caused pollutants

Photo survey and time lapse

video

Fixed site sampling of

particulate matter (PM 2.5, and

PM10).

Low Implement or require new technologies

Reduce emissions and carrying capacity

Wildlife harassment or displacement from

habitat as a result of vehicle sound or

movements

No significant adverse effects Incident reports and photo

surveys, and visual observation

Moderate Sign and reduce speed limits in areas of

recurring incidents

Increase law enforcement and information

programs

Close areas to use

Bison use of groomed surfaces No significant adverse effects Photo and air surveys Low

Wildlife

Lynx habitat effectiveness No significant adverse effects Carnivore and snowshoe hare

track surveys

High

Eliminate grooming operations

Mitigate effects or close trail

Sound Distance and time human-caused sound is

audible

Time vehicles audible at 100’ distance not to

exceed 25 %

Audibility logging High Implement new technologies

Reduce sound emissions or reduce vehicle

numbers

Water/

Snowpack

Surface water sampling of

pH, Hydrogen, Ammonium, Calcium,

Sulfate, Nitrate, and VOCs

State and federal water quality standards Spring runoff surface water

sampling

Snowpack sampling

Low Determination and application of best

management practices

Implement or require new technologies

Reduce vehicle emissions and carrying

capacity

Perceptions of crowding Visitors are able to see, smell, and hear the

natural environment at roadside pullouts and

interpretive trails. Moderate levels of

solitude and quiet available

Visitor survey

Encounter rates

High Establish visitor carrying capacities

Reduce visitor numbers

Smoothness of groomed surface No worse than fair 30% of the winter season Visual observation Low Increase grooming

Reduce vehicle numbers when threshold

temperature is reached1

Visitor

Experience

Visitor satisfaction levels with opportunities

to experience park values and opportunities

to view wildlife, scenery, and experience

clean air and solitude

Visitors are highly satisfied (+90%) with

their park experience

Visitor survey High Establish visitor carrying capacities

Reduce visitor numbers

*High = Daily to weekly or in accordance with standard protocol for parameter; Moderate = Monthly to seasonally and during peak days or use periods; Low = Annually during peak use periods or at the end of the season.

1Mogul study to determine temperature and vehicle numbers for this management action is ongoing (Alger and Gwaltney 2000).
I-21

Table 18. Adaptive Management Indicators, Standards and Methods by Management Zone, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks

and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway Winter Use Plan.

Management

Zone 

7

Ungroomed Motorized Trail

Resource

Value Indicator Preliminary Standard Method MonitoringIntensity* Management Action

Odor Area free of any noticeable odor of humancaused pollutantsPark visitor survey Low Implement or require new technologies

Reduce emissions and carrying capacity

Air Quality

(Public Health)

Visibility No degradation. Area free of any visible sign

of human-caused pollutants

Photo survey and time lapse

video

Fixed site sampling of

particulate matter (PM 2.5, and

PM10).

Low Implement or require new technologies

Reduce emissions and carrying capacity

Wildlife harassment or displacement from

habitat as a result of vehicle sound or

movements

No significant adverse effects Incident reports and photo

surveys, and visual observation

Wildlife Moderate

Lynx habitat effectiveness No significant adverse effects Carnivore and snowshoe hare

track surveys

High

Sign and reduce speed limits in areas of

recurring incidents

Increase law enforcement and information

programs

Close areas to use

Mitigate effects or close trail

Sound Distance and time human-caused sound is

audible

Time vehicles audible at 100’ distance not to

exceed 25 %

Audibility logging High Implement new technologies

Reduce sound emissions or reduce vehicle

numbers

Water/

Snowpack

Surface water sampling of

pH, Hydrogen, Ammonium, Calcium,

Sulfate, Nitrate, and VOCs

State and federal water quality standards Spring runoff surface water

sampling

Snowpack sampling

Low Determination and application of best

management practices

Implement or require new technologies

Reduce vehicle emissions and carrying

capacity

Perceptions of crowding Visitors are able to see, smell, and hear the

natural environment at roadside pullouts and

interpretive trails. Moderate levels of

solitude and quiet available

Visitor survey

Encounter rates

High Establish visitor carrying capacities

Reduce visitor numbers

Visitor

Experience

Visitor satisfaction levels with opportunities

to experience park values and opportunities

to view wildlife, scenery, and experience

clean air and solitude

Visitors are highly satisfied (+90%) with

their park experience

Visitor survey High Establish visitor carrying capacities

Reduce visitor numbers

*High = Daily to weekly or in accordance with standard protocol for parameter; Moderate = Monthly to seasonally and during peak days or use periods; Low = Annually during peak use periods or at the end of the season.
I-22

Table 19. Adaptive Management Indicators, Standards, and Methods by Management Zone, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks

and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway Winter Use Plan.

Management

Zone 

8

Groomed Nonmotorized Trail

Resource

Value Indicator Preliminary Standard Method MonitoringIntensity* Management Actions

Odor Area free of any noticeable odor of humancaused pollutantsPark visitor survey Low Implement or require new technologies

Reduce emissions and carrying capacity

Air Quality

(Public Health)

Visibility No degradation. Area free of any visible sign

of human-caused pollutants

Photo survey and time lapse

video

Fixed site sampling of

particulate matter (PM 2.5, and

PM10)

Low Implement or require new technologies

Reduce emissions and carrying capacity

Wildlife harassment or displacement from

habitat as a result of visitor activity or

movements

No significant adverse effects Incident reports and photo

surveys

High Increase law enforcement and visitor

information

Use of designated trails only

Close areas to use

Wildlife

Lynx habitat effectiveness No significant adverse effects Carnivore and snowshoe hare

track surveys

High Eliminate grooming operations

Mitigate effects or close trail

Sound Distance and time human-caused sound is

audible

Time vehicles audible at 500’ distant from

trailhead or motorized route not to exceed 10

% during daylight hours (8AM-4PM).

Audibility logging High Implement new technologies

Reduce sound emissions or reduce vehicle

numbers

Perceptions of crowding Visitors are able to see, smell, and hear the

natural environment and to experience quiet

and solitude

Visitor survey

Encounter rates

High Establish visitor carrying capacities

Reduce visitor numbers

Visitor

Experience

Visitor satisfaction levels with opportunities

to experience park values and opportunities

to view wildlife, scenery, and experience

clean air and solitude

Visitors are highly satisfied (+90%) with

their park experience

Visitor survey High Establish visitor carrying capacities

Reduce visitor numbers

*High = Daily to weekly or in accordance with standard protocol for parameter; Moderate = Monthly to seasonally and during peak days or use periods; Low = Annually during peak use periods or at the end of the season.
I-23

Table 20. Adaptive Management Indicators, Standards and Methods by Management Zone, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks

and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway Winter Use Plan.

Management

Zone 

9

Ungroomed Nonmotorized Trail or Area

Resource

Value Indicator Preliminary Standard Method MonitoringIntensity* Management Actions

Odor Area free of any noticeable odor of humancaused pollutantsPark visitor survey Low Implement or require new technologies

Reduce emissions and carrying capacity

Air Quality

(Public Health)

Visibility No degradation. Area free of any visible sign

of human-caused pollutants

Photo survey and time lapse

video

Fixed site sampling of

particulate matter (PM 2.5, and

PM10)

Low Implement or require new technologies

Reduce emissions and carrying capacity

Human bear conflicts during pre- and post

denning periods

No significant adverse effects Mapping of denning areas Moderate Increase law enforcement and visitor

information

Use of designated trails only

Close areas to use

Wildlife harassment or displacement from

habitat as a result of visitor activity or

movements

No significant adverse effects Incident reports and photo

surveys

High Increase law enforcement and visitor

information

Use of designated trails only

Close areas to use

Wildlife

Lynx habitat effectiveness No significant adverse effects Carnivore and snowshoe hare

track surveys

High Mitigate effects or close trail

Sound Distance and time human-caused sound is

audible

Time vehicles audible at 500’ distant from

trailhead or motorized route not to exceed 10

% during daylight hours (8AM-4PM).

Audibility logging High Implement new technologies

Reduce sound emissions or reduce vehicle

numbers

Perceptions of crowding Visitors are able to see, smell, and hear the

natural environment. Frequent opportunities

to experience quiet and solitude are available

Visitor survey

Encounter rates

High Establish visitor carrying capacities

Reduce visitor numbers

Visitor

Experience

Visitor satisfaction levels with opportunities

to experience park values and opportunities

to view wildlife, scenery, and experience

clean air and solitude

Visitors are highly satisfied (+90%) with

their park experience

Visitor survey High Establish visitor carrying capacities

Reduce visitor numbers

*High = Daily to weekly or in accordance with standard protocol for parameter; Moderate = Monthly to seasonally and during peak days or use periods; Low = Annually during peak use periods or at the end of the season.
I-24

Table 21. Adaptive Management Indicators, Standards, and Methods by Management Zone, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks

and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway Winter Use Plan.

Management

Zone 

10

Backcountry Nonmotorized Trail or Area

Resource

Value Indicator Preliminary Standard Method MonitoringIntensity* Management Actions

Odor Area free of any noticeable odor of humancaused pollutantsPark visitor survey Low Reduce emissions and carrying capacity

Implement or require new technologies

Air Quality

(Public Health)

Visibility No degradation. Area free of any visible sign

of human-caused pollutants

Photo survey and time lapse

video

Fixed site sampling of

particulate matter (PM 2.5, and

PM10)

Moderate Reduce emissions and carrying capacity

Implement or require new technologies

Human bear conflicts during pre- and post

denning periods

No significant adverse effects Mapping of denning areas High Increase law enforcement and visitor

information

Use of designated trails only

Close areas to use

Wildlife harassment or displacement from

habitat as a result of visitor activity or

movements

No significant adverse effects Incident reports and photo

surveys

High Increase law enforcement and visitor

information

Use of designated trails only

Close areas to use

Wildlife

Lynx habitat effectiveness No significant adverse effects Carnivore and snowshoe hare

track surveys

High Mitigate effects or close trail to use

Water Quality/

Snowpack

Water quality: pH, hydrogen, ammonium,

calcium, sulfate, nitrate, and VOCs

State and federal water quality standards Spring runoff surface water

sampling

Snowpack sampling

Moderate Determination and application of best

management practices

Implement or require new technologies

Reduce vehicle emissions and carrying

capacity

Sound Distance and time human-caused sound is

audible

Time vehicles audible at 500’ distant from

trailhead or motorized route not to exceed 10

% during daylight hours (8AM-4PM).

Vehicles not audible beyond 1000’ from TH

or motorized route.

Audibility logging Moderate Implement new technologies

Reduce sound emissions or reduce vehicle

numbers

Perceptions of crowding Visitors are able to see, smell, and hear the

natural environment. Frequent opportunities

to experience quiet and solitude are available

Visitor survey

Encounter rates

Moderate Establish visitor carrying capacities

Reduce visitor numbers

Visitor

Experience

Visitor satisfaction levels with opportunities

to experience park values and opportunities

to view wildlife, scenery, and experience

clean air and solitude

Visitors are highly satisfied (+90%) with

their park experience

Visitor survey Moderate Establish visitor carrying capacities

Reduce visitor numbers

*High = Daily to weekly or in accordance with standard protocol for parameter; Moderate = Monthly to seasonally and during peak days or use periods; Low = Annually during peak use periods or at the end of the season.
I-25

Table 22. Adaptive Management Indicators, Standards, Methods by Management Zone, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks

and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Parkway Winter Use Plan.

Management

Zone 

11

Sensitive Resource Area

Resource

Value Indicator Preliminary Standard Method MonitoringIntensity* Management Actions

Air Quality

(Public Health)

Visibility No degradation. Photo survey and time lapse

video

Fixed site sampling of

particulate matter (PM 2.5, and

PM10)

Moderate Evaluate success of closure

Wildlife harassment or displacement from

habitat as a result of visitor activity or

movements

No incidents Incident reports and photo

surveys

High Evaluate success of closure

Human / grizzly bear conflicts during pre or

post denning periods

No incidents Mapping of denning areas High Evaluate success of closure

Wildlife

Lynx habitat effectiveness No adverse effects Carnivore and snowshoe hare

track surveys

High Evaluate success of closure

*High = Daily to weekly or in accordance with standard protocol for parameter; Moderate = Monthly to seasonally and during peak days or use periods;

Low = Annually during peak use periods or at the end of the season
APPENDIX J

SOUND

J-1

INTRODUCTION

This appendix presents the analysis approach for determining noise impacts on the natural

soundscape. It also contains tables of distance to audibility by road segment for each

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) alternative. These distances were used to develop the

tables of affected acres or parkland that are in Chapter IV of the Final Environmental Impact

Statement (FEIS). This appendix also includes summary tables and figures comparing the total

affected parkland areas for each alternative.

ANALYSIS APPROACH FOR DETERMINING NOISE IMPACT ON THE NATURAL

SOUNDSCAPE

Two different metrics criteria, audibility and sound level, were used to assist in evaluating the

potential impacts of noise on the natural soundscape. Audibility of wheeled and oversnow

vehicles is an approach that is easily understood and can be used to compare different types of

vehicles and different project alternatives. Audibility is expressed in terms of distances to the

limits of vehicle audibility, acres of parkland affected by audible vehicle traffic, and the

percentages of time vehicles are audible in sections of parkland. Sound level is used to convey

the loudness of vehicular sound at distances from park roads.

To compare the audibility of different vehicle types, the greatest distance that an individual

vehicle pass-by could be heard was computed. Since this distance to the limit of audibility

depends upon both the background (ambient) sound level and the rate at which sound drops off

with dis acres of parkland affected by audible vehicle traffic, and the percentages of time vehicles

are audible

n sections of parkland. Sound level is used to convey the loudness of vehicular sound at

distances from park roads.

To compare the audibility of different vehicle types, the greatest distance that an individual

vehicle pass-by could be heard was computed. Since this distance to the limit of audibility

depends upon both the background (ambient) sound level and the rate at which sound drops off

with dishow how much of the time vehicles can be heard at different distances from the road.

BACKGROUND SOUND CONDITIONS AND TERRAIN CHARACTERISTICS

Sound-level measurements were conducted at several locations throughout Yellowstone National

Park (YNP) and Grand Teton National Park (GTNP) in February and March 2000. These sound

level measurements, supplemented by simultaneous audibility logging for portions of the

measurement periods, were used to establish the background sound conditions for this analysis,

as described in Chapter III.

Based on the logging and observations made during site visits, hours during the day (8:00 A.M. to

6:00 P.M.) at each site were selected when intruding sound sources were likely to be present less

than 50% of the time. These hours became the set of hourly statistical sound level data from

which the background sound conditions were derived.

Levels were determined for two background conditions: 1) “average,” which included times

when the wind blowing through vegetation or over terrain increased the levels, and 2) “quiet,”
J-2

characterized by periods with little or no wind. The measured background data appeared to fall

into two categories - sites in mostly open areas and sites in moderately forested to heavily

forested areas. The background sound levels in the open areas were slightly lower than those in

the forested areas, the difference being due to the sound of wind in the trees.

The levels used in the audibility analysis were: “average:” 20 dBA in open areas and 22 dBA in

forested areas; “quiet:” 15 dBA in open areas and 18 dBA in forested areas.

Audibility of a sound depends upon the frequency content or spectrum of that sound and of the

background sound. Sound spectra for each of the background conditions were required. Spectra

corresponding to the background A-levels cited above were taken from tape recordings of the

background sound environment made at each site during the measurement program.

Vehicle Sound Levels

As shown in the Assumptions and Methodologies section of Chapter IV, reference vehicle noise

emission levels, the maximum pass-by sound level at a distance of 50 feet, were determined for

oversnow vehicles by measurement in YNP and GTNP. Controlled reference pass-by

measurements of many vehicles at various speeds were conducted at Yellowstone during the

February-March 2000 noise measurement program. The measured data were combined by

vehicle type and regressed to determine average emission levels as a function of speed.

The emission levels for wheeled vehicles were taken from the database created for the Federal

Highway Administration’s recently released Traffic Noise Model (TNM) (Menge 1998).

The audibility and sound propagation models require an analysis by frequency, so the spectral

values corresponding to the A-weighted vehicle emission levels were obtained and incorporated

in the model.

Vehicle Sound Level Drop-Off With Distance

The rate at which sound drops off with distance by frequency was taken from the TNM’s soundpropagation algorithms. The TNM includes snow as a ground-cover type, the propagation

constants having been based on carefully controlled acoustical measurements by Embleton et al.

(1983). The TNM also includes Tree Zones as an input type (based on the ISO standard [ISO

9613-2] for dense foliage), and moderately forested to heavily forested areas were modeled with

Tree Zones. The effect of trees is to reduce propagating sound levels by 5 to 10 dB over longer

distances. The losses are less for low frequencies than for high frequencies. Most of the terrain

throughout the study area is rolling or nearly flat; for practical purposes, the modeling effort

assumed flat terrain.

Audibility Analysis - Single Events

Audibility is computed based on auditory signal detection calculations, which compare the

computed vehicle sound levels by frequency to the background sound levels by frequency. The

metric of audibility is called (d-prime or d'). A threshold for audibility derived from field

observations occurs where 10 log = 7 dB (Fidell 1994). That threshold is used in this analysis.
J-3

Distances were computed to the limits of audibility of a single pass-by of each vehicle type in the

two vegetative terrain conditions described above and in the “average” and “quiet” background

conditions. The results are shown in the Assumptions and Methodologies section of Chapter IV.

Audibility Analysis - Cumulative Effects of all Vehicles

The next level of analysis combined all vehicles on each roadway segment, and performed

combined audibility calculations for each study alternative. All types of vehicles to use each

roadway segment on an average day were modeled individually using a complex spreadsheet

calculation. The vehicles were randomly distributed along each roadway segment. The vehicles

were “moved” along the road for the full day, each at its assigned speed, creating day-long time

histories of both 10 log values and A-weighted sound levels. These time histories were created

for several distances from the roadway. From these time histories, many different calculations

and conclusions could be and were made.

One result that was determined relates to the distance to the limit of audibility for each segment

for the two background conditions and two terrain types. Another result relates to the

percentages of time vehicles are audible at each distance. Composite summaries of total area

(acreage) of parkland affected were computed by multiplying the distance to audibility by the

segment length. However, each road segment traverses its own unique proportion of open and

forested terrain, so the appropriate audibility distances are assigned to the appropriate segment

lengths.

The first calculated value for each alternative was the acres of park land by road segment where

any vehicular noise is audible for any amount of time (“audible at all”) under the two background

conditions, average and quiet. The total affected acreage was then summed over all road

segments. To give perspective on the number of acres of affected parkland, two additional sets of

values were calculated. The following paragraphs describe the development of those values.

For each road segment, under each terrain and background condition, and at each distance, the

calculated time histories were used to develop percentiles of the distributions of 10 log d'. The

percentage of time vehicles are audible, where 10 log d' is 7 dB or greater, is selected from the

distribution at each distance. These values can then be plotted at each distance. Figure 1 shows

the conceptual relationship for a hypothetical set of vehicles on a hypothetical road segment for

the two terrain and two background conditions.

J-5

The following is a key to the road segment abbreviations used in the tables on pages J-6 to J-9.

1. Mam-NeE: Mammoth to Northeast Entrance of YNP

2. Mam-Norr: Mammoth to Norris

3. WeE-Mad: West Entrance of YNP to Madison

4. Mad-Norr: Madison to Norris

5. Norr-Cany: Norris to Canyon Village

6. Cany-Fish: Canyon Village to Fishing Bridge

7. Fish-EaE: Fishing Bridge to East Entrance of YNP

8. Fish-WT: Fishing Bridge to West Thumb

9. Mad-OldF: Madison to Old Faithful

10. Old-F-WT: Old Faithful to West Thumb

11. WT-Flag: West Thumb to Flagg Ranch

12. Grassy: Grassy Lake Road

13. Flag-Colt: Flagg Ranch to Colter Bay

14. Colt-Mor: Colter Bay to Moran Junction

15. Mor-EaE: Moran Junction to East Entrance of GTNP

16. Mor-SoE: Moran Junction to South Entrance of GTNP

17. Teton PR: Teton Park Road

18. MoosWil: Moose-Wilson Road

19. Antl Flat: Antelope Flats Snowmobile Route

20. JackLake: Jackson Lake
J-6

Table 1. Distances to audibility by roadway segment, in feet, for alternative A (feet).

Avg. Background

 Open

Avg. Background

 Forested

Quiet Background

Open

Quiet Background

Forest Roadway

Segment Aud.

at all

Aud.

10% or

more

Aud.

50% or

more

Aud.

at all

Aud.

10% or

more

Aud.

50% or

more

Aud.

at all

Aud.

10% or

more

Aud.

50% or

more

Aud

at all

Aud.

10% or

more

Aud.

50% or

more

1. Mam-NeE 3,276 1,406 1,884 3,398 1,637 2,007

2. Mam-Norr 8,420 1,869 3,728 9,956 2,560 3,890

3. WeE-Mad 13,938 11,522 9,412 4,449 3,582 2,918 15,117 12,825 10,836 5,662 3,892 3,330

4. Mad-Norr 9,535 7,221 4,091 3,749 3,035 11,044 7,963 4,939 3,915 3,320

5. Norr-Cany 9,460 6,345 2,396 3,742 2,719 10,817 7,106 3,176 3,907 3,039

6. Cany-Fish 8,645 5,515 3,731 2,511 10,335 6,255 296 3,893 2,838

7. Fish-EaE 5,285 2,483 2,879 5,847 2,844 3,132

8. Fish-WT 8,562 5,020 3,730 2,436 10,081 5,798 3,893 2,753

9. Mad-OldF 12,933 10,688 8,342 3,991 3,477 2,510 14,040 12,033 9,713 5,173 3,798 3,002

10. OldF-WT 9,460 6,609 3,420 3,743 2,939 10,834 7,336 3,990 3,908 3,224

11. WT-Flag 9,460 6,159 2,096 3,742 2,630 10,817 6,897 2,950 3,907 2,965

12. Grassy 5,054 2,879 5,515 3,132

13. Flag-Colt 5,553 2,992 3,091 848 6,085 3,185 3,298 1,027

14. Colt-Mor 5,685 3,367 3,099 1,503 6,317 3,530 3,307 1,702

15. Mor-EaE 6,856 4,153 3,237 3,249 2,077 801 7,428 4,873 3,460 3,453 2,272 946

16. Mor-SoE 6,965 4,663 3,580 3,232 2,150 1,031 7,650 5,432 3,803 3,393 2,322 1,258

17. Teton PR 5,054 2,879 5,515 3,132

18. MoosWil 3,780 2,546 3,892 2,767

19. Antl Flat Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed

20. JackLake 10,590 6,947 3,985 1,850 11,709 7,864 4,445 2,187

Table 2. Distances to audibility by roadway segment, in feet, for alternative B.

Avg. Background

 Open

Avg. Background

Forested

Quiet Background

Open

Quiet Background

Forested Roadway

Segment Aud.

at all

Aud.

10% or

more

Aud.

50% or

more

Aud.

at all

Aud.

10% or

more

Aud.

50% or

more

Aud.

at all

Aud.

10% or

more

Aud.

50% or

more

Aud.

at all

Aud.

10% or

more

Aud.

50% or

more

1. Mam-NeE 3,275 1,404 1,883 3,397 1,636 2,007

2. Mam-Norr 5,099 2,268 2,949 5,933 2,491 3,111

3. WeE-Mad 5,551 2,690 3,049 765 6,179 2,865 3,210 903

4. Mad-Norr 5,158 1,705 2,956 5,999 2,052 3,119

5. Norr-Cany 5,173 2,293 2,957 6,016 2,517 3,121

6. Cany-Fish 5,421 3,757 878 2,971 2,154 6,205 3,905 1,435 3,178 2,442

7. Fish-EaE 3,914 2,325 2,425 4,212 2,546 2,692

8. Fish-WT 5,421 3,774 1,083 2,971 2,168 6,205 3,921 1,587 3,178 2,451

9. Mad-OldF 5,551 2,690 3,049 765 6,179 2,865 3,210 903

10. OldF-WT 6,505 4,021 2,902 3,154 2,284 7,104 4,767 3,203 3,385 2,584

11. WT-Flag 6,505 3,948 2,820 3,154 2,256 7,104 4,487 3,118 3,385 2,550

12. Grassy 3,537 2,122 3,666 2,376

13. Flag-Colt 5,564 2,754 3,051 793 6,193 2,931 3,212 936

14. Colt-Mor 5,719 3,185 3,065 1,452 6,365 3,338 3,226 1,621

15. Mor-EaE 6,707 3,954 3,235 3,199 2,022 807 7,381 4,549 3,456 3,361 2,205 952

16. Mor-SoE 6,965 4,751 3,634 3,232 2,183 1,086 7,650 5,523 3,857 3,393 2,355 1,313

17. Teton PR Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed

18. MoosWil 3,120 1,886 3,233 2,107

19. Antl Flat Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed

20. JackLake 6,629 2,458 3,234 7,234 3,444 3,369

Aud = Audible
J-7

Table 3. Distances to audibility by roadway segment, in feet, for alternative C.

Avg. Background

 Open

Avg. Background

Forested

Quiet Background

Open

Quiet Background

Forested Roadway

Segment Aud.

at all

Aud.

10% or

more

Aud.

50% or

more

Aud.

at all

Aud.

10% or

more

Aud.

50% or

more

Aud.

at all

Aud.

10% or

more

Aud.

50% or

more

Aud.

at all

Aud.

10% or

more

Aud.

50% or

more

1. Mam-NeE 3,276 1,406 1,884 3,398 1,637 2,007

2. Mam-Norr 8,420 1,869 3,728 9,956 2,560 3,890

3. WeE-Mad 5,379 1,537 3,029 5,993 1,781 3,189

4. Mad-Norr 8,579 3,159 3,734 10,126 3,487 3,897

5. Norr-Cany 8,637 3,601 3,736 1,153 10,192 3,826 3,899 1,594

6. Cany-Fish 9,535 7,023 3,912 3,734 3,008 10,785 7,749 4,689 3,897 3,296

7. Fish-EaE 7,086 3,624 3,221 1,197 7,674 3,845 3,488 1,638

8. Fish-WT 9,535 7,100 4,049 3,734 3,024 10,785 7,831 4,910 3,897 3,313

9. Mad-OldF 5,411 2,590 3,032 745 6,031 2,757 3,192 881

10. OldF-WT 11,642 8,538 5,938 3,888 3,201 1,365 12,715 9,891 6,810 4,617 3,510 1,955

11. WT-Flag 11,631 8,106 5,634 3,888 3,157 1,286 12,701 9,462 6,484 4,617 3,461 1,876

12. Grassy 5,054 2,879 5,515 3,132

13. Flag-Colt 5,585 3,097 3,091 979 6,214 3,280 3,299 1,215

14. Colt-Mor 5,738 3,408 3,099 1,517 6,386 3,575 3,307 1,713

15. Mor-EaE 6,864 4,216 3,288 3,249 2,094 816 7,440 4,937 3,512 3,453 2,290 962

16. Mor-SoE 6,965 4,751 3,634 3,232 2,183 1,086 7,650 5,523 3,857 3,393 2,355 1,313

17. Teton PR 5,054 2,879 5,515 3,132

18. MoosWil 2,726 1,349 2,847 1,472

19. Antl Flat 5,054 2,879 5,515 3,132

20. JackLake 6,637 3,839 3,235 1,165 7,243 4,317 3,370 1,605

Table 4. Distances to audibility by roadway segment, in feet, for alternative D.

Avg. Background

 Open

Avg. Background

Forested

Quiet Background

Open

Quiet Background

Forested Roadway

Segment Aud.

at all

Aud.

10% or

more

Aud.

50% or

more

Aud.

at all

Aud.

10% or

more

Aud.

50% or

more

Aud.

at all

Aud.

10% or

more

Aud.

50% or

more

Aud.

at all

Aud.

10% or

more

Aud.

50% or

more

1. Mam-NeE 3,276 1,406 1,884 3,398 1,637 2,007

2. Mam-Norr 3,588 2,264 3,795 2,426

3. WeE-Mad 4,721 3,634 3,006 2,647 1,886 814 5,336 3,799 3,217 2,897 2,198 1,119

4. Mad-Norr 3,680 3,092 2,351 1,480 3,820 3,242 2,557 1,769

5. Norr-Cany 3,679 2,785 2,351 988 3,812 2,951 2,556 1,309

6. Cany-Fish 3,591 2,582 2,296 803 3,798 2,750 2,492 1,079

7. Fish-EaE Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed

8. Fish-WT 3,591 2,506 2,266 783 3,798 2,668 2,433 1,049

9. Mad-OldF 4,228 3,535 2,624 2,588 1,736 4,845 3,705 2,875 2,828 2,058 125

10. OldF-WT 3,679 3,000 2,351 1,357 3,813 3,146 2,557 1,612

11. WT-Flag 3,679 2,701 2,351 859 3,812 2,874 2,556 1,160

12. Grassy 2,936 1,521 3,064 1,774

13. Flag-Colt 3,679 2,701 2,351 859 3,812 2,874 2,556 1,160

14. Colt-Mor 5,649 3,100 3,058 1,378 6,288 3,253 3,219 1,537

15. Mor-EaE 6,648 3,889 3,130 3,194 1,946 779 7,317 4,264 3,346 3,356 2,120 919

16. Mor-SoE 6,965 4,639 3,579 3,232 2,149 1,028 7,650 5,401 3,803 3,393 2,321 1,257

17. Teton PR Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed

18. MoosWil 2,726 1,349 2,847 1,472

19. Antl Flat Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed

20. JackLake 6,629 2,458 3,234 7,234 3,444 3,369

Aud = Audible
J-8

Table 5. Distances to audibility by roadway segment, in feet, for alternative E.

Avg. Background

 Open

Avg. Background

Forested

Quiet Background

Open

Quiet Background

Forested Roadway

Segment Aud.

at all

Aud.

10% or

more

Aud.

50% or

more

Aud.

at all

Aud.

10% or

more

Aud.

50% or

more

Aud.

at all

Aud.

10% or

more

Aud.

50% or

more

Aud.

at all

Aud.

10% or

more

Aud.

50% or

more

1. Mam-NeE 3,276 1,406 1,884 3,398 1,637 2,007

2. Mam-Norr 8,420 1,869 3,728 9,956 2,560 3,890

3. WeE-Mad 13,938 11,522 9,412 4,449 3,582 2,918 15,117 12,825 10,836 5,662 3,892 3,330

4. Mad-Norr 9,535 7,221 4,091 3,749 3,035 11,044 7,963 4,939 3,915 3,320

5. Norr-Cany 9,460 6,345 2,396 3,742 2,719 10,817 7,106 3,176 3,907 3,039

6. Cany-Fish 8,645 5,515 3,731 2,511 10,335 6,255 296 3,893 2,838

7. Fish-EaE 5,285 2,483 2,879 5,847 2,844 3,132

8. Fish-WT 8,562 5,020 3,730 2,436 10,081 5,798 3,893 2,753

9. Mad-OldF 12,933 10,688 8,342 3,991 3,477 2,510 14,040 12,033 9,713 5,173 3,798 3,002

10. OldF-WT 9,460 6,624 3,440 3,743 2,940 10,834 7,355 3,996 3,908 3,226

11. WT-Flag 9,460 6,157 2,075 3,742 2,630 10,817 6,896 2,915 3,907 2,965

12. Grassy 5,054 2,879 5,515 3,132

13. Flag-Colt 5,411 2,535 3,032 743 6,031 2,697 3,192 879

14. Colt-Mor 5,706 2,984 3,064 1,037 6,352 3,155 3,225 1,211

15. Mor-EaE 6,648 3,899 3,143 3,194 1,951 784 7,317 4,320 3,359 3,356 2,125 926

16. Mor-SoE 6,965 4,639 3,579 3,232 2,149 1,028 7,650 5,401 3,803 3,393 2,321 1,257

17. Teton PR Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed

18. MoosWil 2,669 1,336 2,785 1,454

19. Antl Flat Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed

20. JackLake Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed

Table 6. Distances to audibility by roadway segment, in feet, for alternative F.

Avg. Background

 Open

Avg. Background

Forested

Quiet Background

Open

Quiet Background

Forested Roadway

Segment Aud.

at all

Aud.

10% or

more

Aud.

50% or

more

Aud.

at all

Aud.

10% or

more

Aud.

50% or

more

Aud.

at all

Aud.

10% or

more

Aud.

50% or

more

Aud.

at all

Aud.

10% or

more

Aud.

50% or

more

1. Mam-NeE 3,276 1,406 1,884 3,398 1,637 2,007

2. Mam-Norr Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed

3. WeE-Mad Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed

4. Mad-Norr Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed

5. Norr-Cany 8,484 4,031 3,730 2,344 10,025 4,751 3,892 2,632

6. Cany-Fish 9,460 6,554 3,525 3,734 2,934 10,688 7,278 4,092 3,897 3,219

7. Fish-EaE 7,153 3,715 3,226 1,394 7,748 3,926 3,493 1,807

8. Fish-WT 9,535 6,955 3,885 3,734 2,996 10,785 7,687 4,642 3,897 3,282

9. Mad-OldF Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed

10. OldF-WT 11,642 8,681 6,069 3,888 3,211 1,386 12,715 10,011 6,947 4,617 3,519 1,981

11. WT-Flag 11,772 9,016 6,550 3,890 3,263 1,572 12,868 10,379 7,416 4,630 3,574 2,168

12. Grassy 5,054 2,879 5,515 3,132

13. Flag-Colt 5,551 2,607 3,049 749 6,179 2,775 3,210 885

14. Colt-Mor 5,712 3,113 3,064 1,377 6,358 3,268 3,225 1,532

15. Mor-EaE 6,695 3,922 3,178 3,198 1,967 794 7,368 4,419 3,396 3,359 2,142 936

16. Mor-SoE 6,965 4,751 3,634 3,232 2,183 1,086 7,650 5,523 3,857 3,393 2,355 1,313

17. Teton PR Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed

18. MoosWil 2,669 1,336 2,785 1,454

19. Antl Flat Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed

20. JackLake Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed

Aud. = Audible
J-9

Table 7. Distances to audibility by roadway segment, in feet, for alternative G.

Avg. Background

 Open

Avg. Background

Forested

Quiet Background

Open

Quiet Background

Forested Roadway

Segment Aud.

at all

Aud.

10% or

more

Aud.

50% or

more

Aud.

at all

Aud.

10% or

more

Aud.

50% or

more

Aud.

at all

Aud.

10% or

more

Aud.

50% or

more

Aud.

at all

Aud.

10% or

more

Aud.

50% or

more

1. Mam-NeE 3,276 1,406 1,884 3,398 1,637 2,007

2. Mam-Norr 9,003 1,593 3,744 10,757 3,008 3,906

3. WeE-Mad 17,810 14,213 8,501 6,210 3,843 21,138 17,244 10,929 6,933 4,404

4. Mad-Norr 12,839 9,354 4,953 2,555 14,612 11,603 5,605 3,112

5. Norr-Cany 11,846 8,296 3,947 709 13,523 10,389 4,563 1,731

6. Cany-Fish 10,110 7,882 3,774 12,108 9,817 3,939

7. Fish-EaE 8,413 3,727 9,949 3,889

8. Fish-WT 10,110 7,882 3,774 12,108 9,817 3,939

9. Mad-OldF 17,810 14,079 7,473 6,210 3,804 21,138 17,067 10,057 6,933 4,257

10. OldF-WT 12,197 8,688 4,953 2,340 13,735 10,807 5,605 2,872

11. WT-Flag 11,846 8,258 3,947 496 13,523 10,362 4,563 1,662

12. Grassy 3537 2122 3666 2376

13. Flag-Colt 11,846 8,258 3,947 496 13,523 10,362 4,563 1,662

14. Colt-Mor 5,642 2,949 3,058 985 6,281 3,121 3,219 1,159

15. Mor-EaE 6,856 4,132 3,245 3,249 2,079 801 7,428 4,843 3,466 3,453 2,274 947

16. Mor-SoE 6,965 4,663 3,580 3,232 2,150 1,031 7,650 5,432 3,803 3,393 2,322 1,258

17. Teton PR Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed

18. MoosWil 2,669 1,336 2,785 1,454

19. Antl Flat Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed

20. JackLake Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed

Aud = Audible

SUMMARY OF SOUNDSCAPE IMPACTS

Table 8 and Figure 2 of parkland acreage where wheeled or oversnow vehicular noise is audible

for any amount of time (labeled “audible at all”), for 10% of the time or more, and for 50% of the

time or more, under the two background conditions, Average and Quiet. Computations are based

on wheeled and oversnow vehicle traffic for an average day in January or February.

Table 9 and Figure 3 present the information in terms of the percentage difference in affected

acres relative to alternative A. These percentages are used in the discussions of effects for each

alternative in Chapter IV.

Large areas of impact are evident under the “audible at all” criterion, since the single loudest

wheeled or oversnow vehicle or group of vehicles during the day determines this criterion, even if

the number of wheeled or oversnow vehicles is small. Larger percentage differences in impacted

area are evident in the “audible 50% or more” case, since that category most strongly accounts

for the volume of traffic on the road segments. In the “audible 50% or more” case, alternatives

B, D, and G show significant decreases relative to the other alternatives. These decreases are due

to the substantially reduced wheeled or oversnow vehicle volumes in the case of alternatives B

and G, and to the reduced oversnow vehicle noise emission levels in the case of alternatives B

and D.
J-10

Table 8. Summary of affected acres of parkland by alternative

for each category of impact.

Audibility Affected acres of parkland by alternative

Criterion

Background

Condition A B C D E F G

Audible at all Average 181,127 138,018 188,245 110,723 152,203 122,364 176,323

Audible 10% of

the time or more Average 94,599 59,534 80,564 52,772 81,815 73,636 74,795

Audible 50% of

the time or more Average 23,459 14,558 27,091 13,392 23,436 27,722 12,916

Audible at all Quiet 200,676 149,589 205,961 119,781 167,899 134,377 196,687

Audible 10% of

the time or more Quiet 107,373 68,331 91,959 62,803 92,382 83,110 95,060

Audible 50% of

the time or more Quiet 26,525 16,355 32,385 14,910 26,497 32,799 14,087

Table 9. Percentage of affected acres of parkland for each alternative

relative to alternative A.

Audibility Percentage of affected acres of parkland relative to alternative A

Criterion

Background

Condition A B C D E F G

Audible at all Average 100% 76% 104% 61% 84% 68% 97%

Audible 10% of

the time or more Average 100% 63% 85% 56% 86% 78% 79%

Audible 50% of

the time or more Average 100% 62% 115% 57% 100% 118% 55%

Audible at all Quiet 100% 75% 103% 60% 84% 67% 98%

Audible 10% of

the time or more Quiet 100% 64% 86% 58% 86% 77% 89%

Quiet 100% 62% 122% 56% 100% 124% 53%
J-11

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

% relative to Alt. A

A B C D E F G

Alternative

Audible at all, Avg. Audible at all, Quiet

Audible 10% or more, Avg. Audible 10% or more, Quiet

Audible 50% or more, Avg. Audible 50% or more, Quiet

 Figure 3. Percentages of affected area

 of parkland relative to alternative A.

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Acres

A B C Alternative D E F G

Audible at all, Avg. Audible at all, Quiet

Audible 10% or more, Avg. Audible 10% or more, Quiet

Audible 50% or more, Avg. Audible 50% or more, Quiet

 Figure 2. Affected area by alternative

 for each category of impact.