80908 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

Field Station, P.O. Box 911, 1553 South

Main Street, Tonopah, NV 89049.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The land

has been identified as suitable for

disposal by the Tonopah Resource

Management Plan. The land is not

needed for any resource program and is

not suitable for management by the

Bureau or another Federal department

or agency. An environmental

assessment which analyzes potential

impacts from this action has been

prepared and is available for review at

the address shown above.

The mineral estate, excepting saleable

minerals, has been determined to have

no known value. Therefore, the mineral

estate, excepting saleable minerals, will

be conveyed simultaneously with the

surface estate in accordance with

Section 209(b)(1) of Federal Land Policy

and Management Act of 1976.

Acceptance of the sale offer will

constitute application for conveyance of

the mineral interests. The sale

proponent will be required to submit a

$50.00 non-refundable filing fee for

conveyance of the mineral interests with

the purchase price for the land. Failure

to submit the non-refundable fee for the

mineral estate within the time frame

specified by the authorized officer will

result in cancellation of the sale.

Upon publication of this Notice of

Realty Action in the Federal Register,

the lands will be segregated from all

forms of appropriation under the public

land laws, including the mining laws,

but not the mineral leasing laws or

disposals pursuant to Sections 203 and

209 of FLPMA. The segregation shall

terminate upon issuance of a patent or

other document of conveyance, upon

publication in the Federal Register of a

termination of segregation, or 270 days

from date of this publication, which

ever occurs first.

Patent, if issued, will be subject to the

following third party rights: Excepting

and Reserving to the United States:

1. Saleable minerals,

2. A right-of-way thereon for ditches

or canals constructed by the authority of

the United States. Act of August 30,

1980 (43 U.S.C. 945).

Subject to: All valid existing rights.

For a period of 45 days from the date

of publication in the Federal Register,

interested parties may submit comments

to the Assistant Field Manager, Tonopah

Field Station, P.O. Box 911, Tonopah,

NV 89049. Any adverse comments will

be evaluated by the State Director, who

may sustain, vacate or modify this realty

action and issue a final determination.

In the absence of timely filed objections,

this realty action will become a final

determination of the Department of the

Interior.

Dated: December 12, 2000.

W. Craig MacKinnon,

Assistant Field Manager.

[FR Doc. 00–32738 Filed 12–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–HC–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[NV–930–1430–ET; NVN–73931]

Notice of Proposed Withdrawal and

Opportunity for Public Meeting;

Nevada

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land

Management proposes to withdraw

277.046 acres of public lands for a

period of 20 years to protect the historic

town of Rhyolite. This notice closes the

lands for up to 2 years from surface

entry and mining while various studies

and analyses are made to make a final

decision.

DATES: Comments and requests for

meeting should be received on or before

March 22, 2001.

ADDRESS: Comments and meeting

requests should be sent to the Nevada

State Director, BLM, 1340 Financial

Blvd., P.O. Box 12000, Reno, Nevada

89520–0006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dennis J. Samuelson, BLM Nevada State

Office, 775–861–6532.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

December 8, 2000, a petition was

approved allowing the Bureau of Land

Management to file an application to

withdraw the following described

public lands from settlement, sale,

location, or entry under the general land

laws, including the mining laws, subject

to valid existing rights:

Mount Diablo Meridian

T. 12 S., R. 46 E.,

secs. 9 and 16 (within).

The areas described aggregate 277.046

acres in Nye County. For a more

complete description, you may contact

Dennis J. Samuelson at the phone

number or address listed above.

The purpose of the proposed

withdrawal is for the Bureau of Land

Management to protect the historic town

of Rhyolite, which contains numerous

cultural resources. The most prominent

resource is a train depot built in 1906.

The lands will be managed for historic

and recreation purposes. Rhyolite is

located about 90 miles northwest of Las

Vegas near the town of Beatty.

For a period of 90 days from the date

of publication of this notice, all persons

who wish to submit comments,

suggestions, or objections in connection

with the proposed withdrawal may

present their views in writing to the

Nevada State Director of the Bureau of

Land Management.

Notice is hereby given that an

opportunity for a public meeting is

afforded in connection with the

proposed withdrawal. All interested

persons who desire a public meeting for

the purpose of being heard on the

proposed withdrawal must submit a

written request to the Nevada State

Director within 90 days from the date of

publication of this notice. Upon

determination by the authorized officer

that a public meeting will be held, a

notice of the time and place will be

published in the Federal Register at

least 30 days before the scheduled date

of the meeting.

The application will be processed in

accordance with the regulations set

forth in 43 CFR Part 2300.

For a period of 2 years from the date

of publication of this notice in the

Federal Register, the lands will be

segregated as specified above unless the

application is denied or canceled or the

withdrawal is approved prior to that

date. Other uses which will be

permitted during this segregative period

are rights-of-way, leases, and permits.

Date: December 18, 2000.

Margaret L. Jensen,

Deputy State Director, Natural Resources,

Lands, and Planning.

[FR Doc. 00–32760 Filed 12–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–HC–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

Record of Decision; Winter Use Plans

for the Yellowstone and Grand Teton

National Parks and John D. Rockefeller

Jr., Memorial Parkway

Responsible Official:

Dated: November 22, 2000.

Karen Wade,

Intermountain Regional Director, National

Park Service.

Record of Decision

Winter Use Plans for Yellowstone and

Grand Teton National Parks and the

John D. Rockefeller Jr., Memorial

Parkway

Table of Contents

The Decision

Decision

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80909

Actions and Assumptions Common to All

Units

Actions Specific to Yellowstone National

Park

Actions Specific to Grand Teton National

Park and the Parkway

Definitions

Mitigation

Monitoring

Rationale for the Decision

Basis for the Decision

How Environmental Issues Were

Considered and Addressed

Factors Other Than Environmental

Consequences Considered in Making the

Decision

Findings

Measures Taken To Avoid Environmental

Harm

Public Involvement

Scoping

Summary of Public Scoping Comment

Major Issues

Issues or Concerns Not Addressed in the

Plans/EIS

Federal Register Notices

Distribution of the Draft Environmental

Impact Statement

Public Meetings/Hearings

Comments on the Draft Environmental

Impact Statement

Public Response to the FEIS

Consultation

Cooperating Agencies

American Indian Tribes

State Historic Preservation Offices

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Alternatives Considered

Alternative Development

Scope of Analysis in the FEIS

Alternatives

Comparison of Alternatives

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

Information Contact

Attachment A—Monitoring and Adaptive

Management

Attachment B—Summary of Public

Comments on the FEIS

Record of Decision

Winter Use Plans for Yellowstone and

Grand Teton National Parks and the

John D. Rockefeller Jr., Memorial

Parkway

The Decision

This decision made as a result of the

Winter Use Plans Final Environmental

Impact Statement (FEIS) for

Yellowstone (YNP) and Grand Teton

National Parks (GTNP) and the John D.

Rockefeller Jr., Memorial Parkway (the

Parkway) will guide winter use

management in the three park units. The

decision is to select a modified form of

alternative G, as described and

evaluated in the FEIS, with the changes

to that alternative explained here.

Elements of the decision are given in

detail below as actions and assumptions

common to all 3 units, actions specific

to Yellowstone, actions specific to

Grand Teton and the Parkway,

mitigation, and monitoring. The maps

for alternative G and the description of

each management zone provided in the

FEIS, while not duplicated in this

Record of Decision, are features of this

decision.

In order to implement portions of this

decision, the National Park Service

(NPS) will propose to amend its

regulations at 36 CFR 7.13(l), 7.21(a),

and 7.22(g). Although this decision is

final for the purposes of this planning

project, those elements that will go

through the rule making process may be

modified based on further public

comments.

Decision

The selected alternative emphasizes

cleaner, quieter access to the parks

using the technologies available today.

Effective the winter of 2003–2004 and

thereafter, it will allow oversnow

motorized recreation access via NPSmanaged snowcoach only, with limited

exceptions for continued snowmobile

access to other public and private lands

adjacent to or within GTNP. Until then,

interim actions will progressively

reduce the impacts from snowmobile

use in the parks.

This decision addresses the full range

of issues regarding safety, natural

resource impacts, and visitor experience

and access. It addresses the issues in a

way that will make it necessary for local

economies to adapt, and for snowmobile

users to access the parks using a

different mode of transport.

Actions and Assumptions Common to

All Units

Implementation

• Unless otherwise noted, the parks

will implement all actions the winter

following the Record of Decision (ROD)

for the winter use plans and EIS.

Actions requiring a change in

regulations will be implemented once

the new regulations are effective.

• If it can be demonstrated

sufficiently for NPS to determine that an

implemented action has affected or

would substantially affect a concession

operation prior to the expiration of its

contract, the action will be implemented

only through negotiation or when a new

contract is awarded.

• NPS will develop a detailed

snowcoach implementation plan in

coordination with gateway

communities, concessioners and winter

permittees.

• NPS will coordinate with gateway

communities, concessioners and winter

permittees and state tourism program

resources on a new marketing strategy

designed to facilitate winter visitation

by snowcoach.

• Allow a planning and

implementation period of 3 (three)

years.

• In the winter of 2000–2001,

snowmobile and snowplane use will

continue under current regulations. This

is a departure from alternative G. This

change is made because the

implementation of changes in

snowmobile and snowplane use that

require new regulations could not be

made until the 2000–2001 season is

nearly over. Waiting until 2001–2002 to

set new limits on snowmobile and

snowplane use will afford ample public

notice of the new limits.

• In the winter of 2000–2001, actions

that do not require regulations (such as

increasing ranger patrols to reduce the

disturbance of wildlife) will be

undertaken to reduce the impacts from

snowmobile use.

• In the winters of 2001–2003,

existing commercial snowcoach

operators will be encouraged to increase

their fleet size, and snowmobile and

other new operators will be encouraged

to purchase or lease coaches and reduce

snowmobile numbers.

• In 2001–2002, daily limits will be

set on snowmobile and snowplane use

so that daily use levels cannot increase

above the average peak day use levels of

recent years, as shown in table 1, below.

• In 2002–2003, daily limits will be

set to limit total recreational

snowmobile use to approximately 50%

of the current average annual use levels

at the South and West Entrances of

YNP. Current snowmobile use levels

will be maintained from the East and

North Entrances of YNP. See table 1,

below.

• In 2002–2003 for GTNP and the

Parkway eliminate snowmobile use on

the Teton Park Road, all motorized use

on Jackson Lake, and all other

recreational snowmobile use except for

that on the CDST, Grassy Lake Road,

and access routes to adjacent public

lands, with limits shown in table 1,

below.

• In 2003–2004 and thereafter, all

oversnow motorized visitor travel in the

parks will be by snowcoach, except for

limited routes in GTNP that will remain

open for snowmobile access to adjacent

public or private lands and to private

inholdings.

Regulation/Enforcement/Administration

• Several actions include possible

road closures depending on the results

of scientific studies. None of the actions

preclude other closures for safety,

80910 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

1Note: The term ‘‘NPS managed’’ refers to permit

management. In this case the mass transportation

snowcoach system would be provided by private

concessioners who operate under a permit from the

NPS. Under the terms of the permit or concessions

contract, the NPS may stipulate, among other items,

the type of services to be offered, cost to the public,

and number of visitors that may be served or

transported. The NPS may require that the types of

vehicles used meet certain environmental,

accessibility and safety requirements. It is the

responsibility of the NPS to monitor all services

offered under permit to ensure that the public and

the parks are being well served. These permits are

generally offered for competitive bidding in limited

numbers and are granted for a specific number of

years.

2Estimates of emissions for conventional vans

converted for oversnow travel indicate that the

emissions increase once the conversion is made.

For this reason adherence to EPA regulations for

similar wheeled vans is neither appropriate nor

required.

resource protection, or other reasons as

identified in 36 CFR 1.5 or 2.18.

• At present no Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) standards exist

for off-road vehicles. If the EPA adopts

standards or measurement methods for

vehicle emissions and sound applicable

to winter use in the parks, they will be

implemented in accordance with EPA

regulations.

• Require all new oversnow vehicles

purchased by the parks to conform to

the best environmental standards

available, and that other vehicles are

retrofitted whenever possible with new

technologies designed to lower sound

and emission levels.

• Increase the field presence of park

rangers during the interim period before

full implementation of snowcoach

access to monitor, anticipate, detect and

mitigate resource and wildlife impacts

and to increase visitor safety.

Resource Protection

• Continue scientific studies and

monitoring regarding winter visitor use

and park resources. Close selected areas

of the park, including sections of roads,

to visitor use if scientific studies

indicate that human presence or

activities have a detrimental effect on

wildlife or other park resources that

could not otherwise be mitigated. The

appropriate level of environmental

assessment under NEPA will be

completed for all actions as required by

CEQ regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–

1508).

• Give a 1-year notice before any

closure is implemented unless

immediate closure is deemed necessary

to avoid impairment of park resources

or to protect public safety.

• Sand, or an equally

environmentally neutral substance, will

be used for traction on all plowed

winter roads. Before spring opening,

sand removal operations will continue

on all plowed park roads.

• Investigate and implement options

to reduce the palatability and

accessibility to wildlife of the hydraulic

fluid used in snow groomers.

• When snow depth warrants and at

periodic intervals, routine plowing or

grooming operations will include laying

back roadside snowbanks that could be

a barrier to wildlife exiting the road

corridor.

Visitor Use and Access

• NPS will determine visitor use

capacities based on studies that set

indicators and standards for desired

visitor experiences and resource

conditions. The NPS will monitor

indicators to maintain the conditions for

each management prescription. If

necessary, techniques such as

reservations, permits, and differential

fees will be implemented. See zone

descriptions, monitoring table, and

Appendix H (Recreation Carrying

Capacity).

• Continue to implement transition

and action plans for accessibility and

support the philosophy of universal

access in the parks. The NPS will make

reasonable efforts to ensure accessibility

to buildings, facilities, programs, and

services. The NPS will develop

strategies to ensure that new and

renovated facilities, programs and

services (including those provided by

concessioners) are designed,

constructed, or offered in conformance

with applicable policies, rules,

regulations, and standards (including

but not limited to the Architectural

Barriers Act of 1968; the Americans

with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA): the

Uniform Federal Accessibility

Standards of 1984 (UFAS); and the

Guidelines for Outdoor Developed

Areas of 1999).

• Architectural and Site Access and

Programmatic Access: The NPS will

evaluate existing buildings and existing

and new programs, activities, and

services (including telecommunications

and media) to determine current

accessibility and usability by disabled

winter visitors. Action plans to remove

barriers will be developed.

• This decision includes an

affirmative commitment to implement

strategies designed to provide a

reasonable level of affordable access to

winter park visitors.

• Backcountry nonmotorized use will

continue to be allowed throughout the

parks except where designated

otherwise for resource protection

purposes (shown as Zone 11 or area of

designated trail use on alternative map).

• Other means of oversnow travel not

foreseen in this Record of Decision must

be specifically approved by the park

superintendent.

• In the third year of the interim

period (2002–2003), snowmobiles in

YNP must be accompanied by an NPS

permitted guide and travel in groups of

no more than 11 (including the guide).

The superintendent will be authorized

to also require groups and guides in

GTNP and the Parkway.

• In 2003–2004 and thereafter, permit

only NPS-managed mass transit

snowcoaches on designated oversnow

roads, other than for allowable

administrative, emergency or other

snowmobile access as specified in other

actions in this document.1

• Through the permitting process

phase out all oversnow vehicles that do

not meet the best available

environmental standards for oversnow

mass transit travel. Currently, the mass

transit oversnow vehicle that produces

the lowest emissions is the conversion

van mat track.2 Any oversnow mass

transit system in the parks must be low

emission, quiet, safe, affordable,

accessible, and comply with the

requirements of EO 11644.

• Allow mass transit snowcoaches

only when their sound levels are at or

below 75 decibels as measured on the

A-weighted scale at 50 feet at full

throttle. Continue to work with

snowcoach manufacturers and operators

to meet a long-term goal to lower

snowcoach sound levels to 70 decibels

or lower.

• Prohibit late night oversnow travel

from about 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. in 2000–

2001, and thereafter from about 9 p.m.

to 8 a.m., unless specifically authorized.

• Implement an information program

on snow and trail conditions, points of

interest, and available recreational

opportunities. Through partnerships,

establish park visitor contact

opportunities in gateway communities

and utilize state tourism program

resources.

Actions Specific to Yellowstone

National Park

• In Yellowstone, the NPS will

continue to allow the plowing of

Highway 191 and will continue to plow

the road from Mammoth to Tower and

Tower to the Northeast Entrance (Cooke

City) throughout the winter.

• Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone

and the McMinn Bench bighorn sheep

area will continue to be closed to winter

use.

• Winter garbage storage facilities that

are wildlife-proof will be constructed in

the Old Faithful, Grant, Lake, and

Canyon areas.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80911

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

4 16 U.S.C. 406d–1, et seq.

5Termination of plowing from Colter Bay to Flagg

Ranch is contingent upon the winterization of

facilities at Colter Bay and expiration and

reissuance of a concession contract associated with

Flagg Ranch. The present contract expires in 2009.

See Actions and Assumptions Common to All

Units, second bullet under Implementation.

6This provision is contingent upon the

termination of plowing from Colter Bay to Flagg

Ranch.

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

• Continue all existing groomed

motorized routes (zone 3). Offer

snowcoach service on the East Entrance

Road if safety goals can be met.

Management of avalanche danger on the

East Entrance Road may mean

unscheduled closures of the road to all

travel.

• Provide nonmotorized

opportunities (e.g., skiing and

snowshoeing) (zones 8 and 9). Examples

of existing roads or trails that will be

groomed include Fountain Flats Road

and portions of the East Entrance road.

• Where feasible, set parallel tracks

on one or both sides of the snow roads

to facilitate nonmotorized access.

• Increase interpretive opportunities

related to the unique aspects of the

winter environment by providing

interpretive programs at destination

areas and warming huts. Provide guided

interpretive programs for organized

groups on snowcoaches. Provide

interpretive ski and snowshoe tours and

programs such as near Tower, Canyon,

Mammoth, Old Faithful, West Thumb,

Madison, and West Entrance.

• Increase the size and number of

warming huts and other day use

facilities. Place warming huts and

restrooms at popular ski trailheads (for

example Tower), as support for

motorized staging areas (for example

Norris), and where the existing facility

size is currently inadequate to handle to

the dual function of warming hut and

interpretive program staging area (for

example, Canyon).

• Restrict nonmotorized uses in

certain wildlife winter ranges and

thermal areas to travel on designated

routes or trails (zones 8 and 9).

• Implement the winter use season

during the period from late November to

mid-March.

• Reduce administrative

snowmobile 3 use from the 106 currently

used and supplement with

administrative snowcoaches, subject to

available funding. When practicable,

replace administrative snowmobiles

with a type that meets the best available

emission and sound limits.

• Continue allowing personal nonrecreation use of snowmobiles by

employees and their families living in

the interior of Yellowstone; however,

subject to available funding, provide

administrative snowcoaches for their

use and encourage them to replace their

current snowmobiles with cleaner and

quieter machines.

• Allow limited use of administrative

snowmobiles by concessioners. Require

cleaner and quieter technologies as they

are developed (through permit and

contracts) and encourage the use of

snowcoaches.

Actions Specific to Grand Teton

National Park and the Parkway

• In Grand Teton and the Parkway,

the following roadways will continue to

be plowed:

• Highway 26/89/187 from the south

boundary of the park to Moran

• Highway 89/287 from Moran to

Colter Bay

• Highway 26/287 from Moran to the

eastern park boundary

• Teton Park Road from Moose

Junction to Taggart Lake Trailhead, and

from Jackson Lake Junction to Signal

Mountain Lodge; from Highway 89/287

along the Pacific Creek road to the park

boundary; from Kelly to the eastern park

boundary; from Gros Ventre Junction to

Kelly to Shadow Mountain staging area;

and the road to the eastern park

boundary at Ditch Creek.

• Current winter closures will remain

in effect on the Snake River floodplain,

the Buffalo Fork River floodplain, the

Uhl Hill area, Willow Flats, Kelly Hill,

and Static Peak.

• Reasonable and direct access to

adjacent public and private lands, or to

privately owned lands within the park

with permitted or historical motorized

access, will continue via paved and

plowed routes or via oversnow routes

from GTNP (used by snowmobiles).4

• Provide opportunities for oversnow

motorized trail use (zone 3) by

snowcoaches only on the unplowed,

groomed surface of the highway from

Colter Bay to Flagg Ranch, in the future

upon the meeting of certain conditions,

and, effective 2003–2004 and thereafter,

north into Yellowstone, and on the

Grassy Lake Road.5

• Provide opportunities for

nonmotorized ungroomed winter trail

use (zone 9):

• On the Teton Park Road from

Taggert Lake Trailhead to Signal

Mountain.

• On Antelope Flats.

• Near Colter Bay and Two Ocean

Lake.

• On the unplowed portion of the

Moose-Wilson road.

• Continue destination and support

facilities at Moose, Triangle X, Colter

Bay, and Flagg Ranch, and add warming

hut facilities along the Teton Park Road

to provide visitor services and

interpretive opportunities that focus on

nonmotorized uses (zone 1).

• Limit backcountry nonmotorized

use to designated routes to address

wildlife issues in certain wildlife winter

ranges, or close certain areas to all use.

• Winterize facilities at Colter Bay to

provide a suitable staging area for

snowcoach access.6

• Effective 2002–2003, discontinue

the motorized use of Jackson Lake’s

frozen surface (no snowplanes or

snowmobiles).

• Increase interpretive opportunities

related to the unique aspects of the

winter environment by providing

interpretive programs at destination

areas and warming huts. Provide guided

interpretive programs for organized

groups on snowcoaches. Provide

interpretive ski and snowshoe tours and

programs at locations such as Moose,

Colter Bay, and Flagg Ranch visitor

services.

• Phase in administrative

snowmobile types that meet the best

available emission and sound limits.

Administrative use of snowmobiles in

Grand Teton is limited to law

enforcement, utility and maintenance

access, permitted scientific studies,

search and rescue or other use as

approved by the superintendent.7

Definitions

• Oversnow motor vehicles: selfpropelled vehicles intended for travel

on snow, driven by a track or tracks in

contact with the snow that may be

steered by skis or tracks in contact with

the snow. This term includes both

snowmobiles and snowcoaches.

• Snowmobiles: self-propelled

vehicles intended for travel on snow,

having a curb weight of not more than

1,000 pounds (450kg), driven by a track

or tracks in contact with the snow,

which may be steered by a ski or skis

in contact with the snow.

• Snowplanes: self-propelled vehicles

intended for oversnow travel, having a

weight of not more than 1,000 pounds

(450kg) mounted on skis in contact with

the snow, and driven by a pusherpropeller.

• Snowcoaches: self-propelled, mass

transit vehicles intended for travel on

snow, having a curb weight of over

1,000 pounds (450kg), driven by a track

or tracks and steered by skis or tracks,

having a capacity of at least 8

passengers.

• The phrase gateway communities

refers to the towns of Jackson and Cody,

80912 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

Wyoming, and Gardiner and West

Yellowstone, Montana.

• A designated route for

nonmotorized recreation is defined as a

marked or otherwise indicated

oversnow travel way.

Mitigation

Mitigation beyond the actions

described in the decision is necessary to

reduce disclosed impacts to a level that

meets legal requirements, or that is

otherwise acceptable within the

framework of regulations, executive

orders or policies. The following

measures are necessary to further

mitigate impacts of this decision during

the interim period before full

implementation and thereafter.

Air Quality

• Park concessions will be required to

mitigate the impacts of air pollution

during the interim period by selling

only bio-fuels and synthetic lubes inside

the park.

Water Resources

• Best management practices will be

used during the construction,

reconstruction, or winter plowing of

trails and roads to prevent unnecessary

vegetation removal, erosion, and

sedimentation.

• Separate new or reconstructed

winter-motorized trails from drainages

where practicable to mitigate the routing

of snowpack contaminants into surface

water.

• Any new or reconstructed winter

use sanitary facilities will be

constructed in locations and with

advanced technologies that will protect

water resources.

• A focused monitoring program will

reduce the uncertainty of impacts from

oversnow vehicles, and if necessary

indicate best management practices that

might be implemented.

Wildlife, Including Federally Protected

Species and Species of Special Concern

• NPS personnel will patrol sensitive

resource locations to ensure compliance

with area closures.

• NPS personnel will increase patrols

of locations where disturbance of

wildlife by snowmobile use is most

common, to reduce that disturbance.

• Monitoring of eagle populations to

identify and protect nests will continue.

The park will continue to support the

objectives of the Greater Yellowstone

Bald Eagle Management Plan.

• Monitoring of wolf populations will

continue.

• Lynx surveys will be undertaken to

document the distribution and

abundance of lynx in the parks and their

relationship to packed surfaces. The

presence of other carnivores will be

documented. The parks will abide by

the recommendations of the Lynx

Conservation Assessment Strategy.

• Continue to assess grizzly bear

abundance, distribution, and habitat

selection, including the location of

dens. The information obtained will

assist park managers in protecting

important habitats and planning

recreational activities that minimize

disturbance to bears. Monitoring grizzly

bear populations will continue in

accordance with the Interagency Grizzly

Bear Management Guidelines and the

parks’ bear management plans.

• Monitoring and protecting

trumpeter swan habitats and nests will

continue, including the closure of nest

sites, when warranted, to public access

from February 1 to September 15.

• Monitoring potential or known

winter use conflicts will result in area

closures if necessary to protect wildlife

habitat.

• Conduct snow track surveys for

carnivores (including lynx) on both

groomed and ungroomed routes.

• Continue to monitor use of

groomed, ungroomed, and plowed

surfaces by bison and other ungulates.

Cultural Resources

• Should the discovery of human

remains, funerary objects, sacred

objects, or objects of cultural patrimony

occur during construction, provisions

outlined in the Native American Graves

Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990

(25 USC 3001) will be followed.

• Trails and trailheads will be sited to

avoid adversely impacting known

cultural resources, including potential

cultural landscapes. In addition, the use

of natural materials and colors for all

permanent signs erected will allow the

signs to blend into their surroundings.

Interim Snowmobile Use Limits

During the winter of 2000–2001

snowmobile use will continue to be

allowed under existing regulations. This

deviates from the FEIS since regulations

on use limits will not be finalized until

near the end of that winter season or

later. Making a change during that

season would not provide enough notice

to visitors, many of whom would have

already made plans to visit the parks

before any limits could be finalized.

• During the winter of 2001–2002,

snowmobile use will be capped as

follows:

• Set daily snowmobile use numbers

for all three park units at levels not to

exceed the 7-year peak daily average.

The visitor scenario developed for

alternative A (see FEIS appendix G)

shows snowmobile use distribution at

YNP gateways, and by road segments in

the three parks at both the current daily

average and peak average snowmobile

use levels over the past seven years. The

scenario provides numbers that can be

expressed as interim visitor use limits.

Maximum daily limits at the entrances

will be set at the average peak day

snowmobile use (see Table 1 and

footnote at the bottom of the following

page).

• For snowplane use on Jackson Lake

reissue permits to permit holders of

record and do not issue any new

permits. Limit snowmobile use on

Jackson Lake to 30 per day.

• If monitoring indicates a trend of

significant increase above average daily

use as shown in Table 1, NPS will

considering adjusting the cap

downward at other than traditional peak

use periods pursuant to, and as

authorized under, 36 CFR 1.5 and 2.18.

• In 2002–2003 set daily snowmobile

entrance limits to reduce total

recreational snowmobile use to levels

that will result in approximately 50% of

the current average annual use level at

the South and West Entrances of YNP.

Current snowmobile use levels will be

maintained from the East and North

Entrances of YNP.

• In 2002–2003 for the Parkway, in

addition to limiting use between Flagg

Ranch and the South Entrance to YNP,

limit snowmobile use on the Grassy

Lake Road and the CDST in the Parkway

to current use levels.

• In 2002–2003 for GTNP eliminate

snowmobile use on the Teton Park

Road, all motorized use on Jackson

Lake, and all other recreational use by

snowmobiles except for that on the

CDST and access routes to adjacent

public lands. Limit snowmobile use on

the CDST in GTNP to current use levels.

• In 2003–2004 and thereafter, all

oversnow motorized visitor travel in the

parks will be by snowcoach except for

limited routes in GTNP that will remain

open for snowmobile access.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80913

8NPS Director’s Order #47 provides guidance for

inventory and monitoring procedures necessary to

preserve the natural soundscape. NPS–77 provides

guidance for monitoring and inventory of other

natural resources elements.

TABLE 1.—INTERIM CAPS ON SNOWMOBILES IN YELLOWSTONE (YNP), ROCKEFELLER PARKWAY (JDRMP) AND GRAND

TETON (GTNP)

Road segments Historic average

daily use

2001–2002

Peak day limits

2002–2003

Daily limits

YNP North Entrance ........................................................................................................ 41 60 60

YNP West Entrance ......................................................................................................... 555 1030 278

YNP East Entrance .......................................................................................................... 37 100 65

JDRMP Flagg Ranch to YNP South Entrance ................................................................ 176 330 90

JDRMP Grassy Lake Road ............................................................................................. 25 40 25

JDRMP Flagg Ranch to GTNP Moran Junction ............................................................. 25 70 25

GTNP Jackson Lake ........................................................................................................ 30 30 0

GTNP Teton Park Road .................................................................................................. 11 20 0

GTNP Moose-Wilson Road ............................................................................................. 3 10 0

*Implementation of this limit is to

ensure that use does not exceed the

historic averages for use on the busiest

peak days and the level of impact

associated with it. Use fluctuates daily,

increasing especially during certain

holiday periods. Use caps should act to

allow such fluctuations, since this is the

nature of business and visitation. This is

why the peak use day represents a cap,

to allow the business pattern to

continue. It is not the intent of this cap

to allow peak use numbers to occur

every day. If this were to occur then

levels would be exceeded overall, and

additional impacts would be incurred. It

is the intent of this cap to replicate the

pattern and amount of use that has been

established over an average of seven

years.

Monitoring

In order to assess the long-term effects

of management actions on park

resources and values resource

inventory, monitoring and adaptive

management are incorporated into this

decision. The key resources and values

potentially impacted by winter

recreation use in the three park units are

air quality, wildlife, sound,8 water

resources, safety, and visitor experience.

Attachment A outlines specific

indicators for monitoring these

resources and values. The indicators

will be monitored to ensure protection

of natural resources and park values and

evaluate management success. The

selected alternative also includes

adaptive management provisions. It

provides for systematic feedback to park

management and allows for adjustment

of activities to mitigate unplanned or

undesirable outcomes. Procedures,

indicators, standards and potential

management actions for adaptive

management are also presented in

Attachment A.

Monitoring programs will be

coordinated among the parks. The

programs will function and be

coordinated through the planning staffs

of the parks. The development of annual

plans and reports will be coordinated

through the planning units, and the

planning units will be responsible for

delivering those products. Actual

monitoring responsibilities for park

personnel will be assigned through

annual plans.

Monitoring programs will be

conducted on a sampling basis for the

purpose of effective use of funds and

personnel. It is expected that initial

monitoring will be intensive, both in

geographic and temporal extent, so that

correlations can be made and results can

be extrapolated. It is also expected that

monitoring over time will become less

intensive and arrive at a low intensity,

maintenance level. Sampling schedules

can vary from year to year, focusing on

different areas within the park units.

U.S. EPA expressed concerns about

the actions that would be taken if NPS

does not have sufficient funds to

monitor winter use in accordance with

the adaptive management part of this

decision. Actions affecting park values

for which there are no defined

standards, such as odor, sound or visitor

satisfaction, are subject to an adaptive

management approach. If continuing

problems are indicated relative to such

impacts, but there are not sufficient

funds for focused monitoring and

evaluation of those problems,

emergency management actions will be

implemented to eliminate the impact

pending the attainment of funds.

Rationale for the Decision

This section provides the reasons for

selecting FEIS alternative G as the

decision and the basis for winter use

plans in the three park units. In arriving

at this decision, I have considered the

detailed analysis of effects in the FEIS

for a range of alternative plans that

would govern winter use. I have

considered how each alternative

responds to the purpose and need for

action, to improve existing conditions in

the parks and move them toward a

desired condition that is implicit in NPS

mandates. In doing so, I considered the

impacts for each alternative program

and weighed them against affirmative

direction for protecting park resources

and values, and their enjoyment by

future generations, from adverse

impacts or impairment. I also

considered the degree to which each

alternative would enhance the condition

of resources or values and their

enjoyment. Other considerations

include socioeconomic impacts, effects

on lands adjacent to the three parks, the

plans or desires articulated by local

communities and nonfederal

governments, and the full body of

public comments on the draft EIS. All

these considerations are presented

below as they contribute to the decision.

The fundamental basis for the

decision is the direction provided in

laws, regulations, executive orders and

policies (mandates) that relate to human

uses of the parks and their effect on park

resources and values. This basis is

overlain by the analysis of effects on

park resources and values disclosed in

the FEIS. Then, conclusions or findings

are made about the alternatives and

their effects in relation to the key

mandates regarding adverse impacts and

impairment. Other considerations are

incorporated into the discussion.

Basis for the Decision

Law

The fundamental purpose of the

national park system established by the

Organic Act and reaffirmed by the

General Authorities Act, as amended,

begins with a mandate to conserve park

resources and values. This mandate is

independent of the separate prohibition

on impairment and applies all the time,

with respect to all park resources and

80914 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

9The Redwood Act of March 27, 1978 serves as

the basis for any judicial resolution of competing

private and public values and interests in the

national park system, and affirms the primary

consideration of conserving, unimpaired, park

resources and values.

10 36 CFR 2.18 Snowmobiles.

11EO 11644, Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public

Lands, Federal Register, Vol 37, page 2877, No. 27–

Wed. February 9, 1972.

12EO 11989, Off Road Vehicles on Public Lands,

Federal Register, Vol 42, page 26959 No: 101–Wed.

May 25, 1977.

13 Directors Order #55, September 8, 2000, as

amended November 17, 2000.

14NPS Director’s Order #47 articulates

operational policies requiring the protection,

maintenance or restoration of the natural

soundscape resource in a condition unimpaired by

inappropriate noise sources. Inappropriate noise is

that generated by activities at a level described as

excessive, which impacts the park’s natural

soundscapes and jeopardizes the natural resources

or the purposes for which the park was created.

15 1988 NPS Management Policies, Chapter 4

16 1988 NPS Management Policies, Chapter 8

values, even when there is no risk that

any park resources or values may be

impaired. NPS managers must always

seek ways to avoid, or to minimize to

the greatest degree practicable, adverse

impacts on park resources and values.

The laws give the NPS the discretion to

allow some impacts to park resources

and values when appropriate and

necessary to fulfill the purposes of a

park as long as that impact does not

constitute impairment.

The Organic Act mandate includes

providing for the enjoyment of park

resources and values by the people of

the United States. The mandate applies

not just to the people who visit the

parks—but to all the people—including

those who derive inspiration and

knowledge from afar. NPS policies

acknowledge that providing

opportunities for public enjoyment is a

fundamental part of the NPS mission.

While the policies permit recreation and

other activities, including NPS

management activities, they may be

allowed only when they will not cause

an impairment or derogation of a park’s

resources, values or purposes.

Recognizing that the enjoyment of the

national parks by future generations can

be assured only if the quality of park

resources and values is left unimpaired,

Congress has provided that when there

is a conflict between conserving

resources and values and providing for

enjoyment of them, conservation is to be

the primary concern.9

Regulation

Snowmobiling (specifically) may be

allowed only where it is consistent with

the park’s natural, cultural, scenic and

aesthetic values, safety considerations,

park management objectives, and will

not disturb wildlife or damage park

resources.10

Executive Orders

Areas and trails for off road vehicle

use shall be located in areas of the

national park system only if the agency

head determines that off road vehicle

use in such locations will not adversely

effect their natural, aesthetic or scenic

values. Use will be controlled or

directed to protect the resources,

promote safety, and minimize conflicts

among various users of those lands.

Also, the agency head shall monitor the

effects of such use that may be

authorized, and upon that information

they shall from time to time amend or

rescind designations, or take other

actions to eliminate adverse impacts.11

If the agency determines that the use of

off-road vehicles (including

snowmobiles) will cause or is causing

considerable adverse effects on the soil,

vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat,

such areas shall immediately be closed

to that use.12

Interpretation of Policy

Impairment is an impact that, in the

professional judgment of the responsible

NPS manager, would harm the integrity

of park resources or values, including

the opportunities that otherwise would

be present for the enjoyment of those

resources or values. Impairment may

occur from visitor use or park

management activities.13

NPS Director’s Order # 55 define the

terms ‘‘resources and values’’ as the

park’s scenery, natural and historic

objects, and wildlife, including, to the

extent present in the park: The

ecological, biological and physical

processes that created the park and that

continue to act upon it; scenic features;

natural visibility (both in daytime and at

night); natural landscapes; natural

soundscapes 14 and smells; water and air

resources; soil; geological resources;

paleontological resources; archeological

resources; cultural landscapes;

ethnographic resources; historic and

prehistoric sites, structures, and objects;

museum collections; and native plants

and animals. The park’s resources and

values also include the opportunity for

enjoyment of these resources, to the

extent that can be done without

impairing them. The term also includes

the park’s role in contributing to the

national dignity, the high public value

and integrity, and the superlative

environmental quality of the national

park system, and the benefit and

inspiration provided to the American

people by the national park and any

additional specific purposes for which a

park was established. An impact is more

likely to constitute an impairment to the

extent that it affects a resource or value

whose conservation is:

• Necessary to fulfill specific

purposes identified in the establishing

legislation;

• Key to the cultural or natural

integrity of the park or opportunities to

enjoy the park; or

• Identified as a goal in relevant NPS

planning documents.

The 1988 NPS Management Policies

state that the National Park Service will

seek to perpetuate the best possible air

quality in parks because clean air is

critical to visitor enjoyment, human

health, scenic vistas, and the

preservation of natural systems and

cultural resources. The policies also

recognize that many natural resources,

including water and wildlife, are

sensitive to air pollution. Additionally,

NPS must err on the side of protecting

air quality and related values if there is

doubt as to the impacts on park

resources of existing or potential air

pollution.15 NPS also has recognized

that it must preserve the natural quiet

and the natural sounds associated with

the physical and biological resources of

the parks. Managers must monitor

sounds and take actions to prevent or

minimize unnatural sounds that

adversely affect park resources or values

and visitors’ enjoyment of them.

The 1988 NPS management policies 16

also recognize that the NPS Organic Act

directs the agency to provide for the

public enjoyment of parks while leaving

resources unimpaired for future

generations. The policies mandate that

the use of parks will be resource-based

and nonconsumptive of resources. To

the extent practicable, the NPS will

encourage people to come to the parks

and to pursue inspirational,

educational, and recreational activities

related to the resources found in the

parks. NPS must manage visitor use

and, as necessary, regulate the amount

and kind, and the time and place, of

visitor activities.

NPS must encourage recreational

activities that are consistent with

applicable legislation, that promote

visitor enjoyment of park resources

through a direct association or relation

to those resources so long as those uses

are consistent with the protection of the

resources and are compatible with other

visitor uses. NPS must manage

recreational use to protect park

resources, provide for public enjoyment,

promote public safety, and minimize

conflicts with other visitor activities and

park uses. Finally, unless the activity is

required by statute, NPS will not allow

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80915

a recreational activity in a park if it

would involve or result in:

• Inconsistency with the park’s

enabling legislation or proclamation, or

derogation of the values or purposes for

which the park was established

• Unacceptable impacts on visitor

enjoyment due to interference or

conflict with other visitor use activities

• Consumptive use of park resources

• Unacceptable impacts on park

resources or natural processes

• Unacceptable levels of danger to the

welfare or safety of the public, including

participants

Public use of a park is an important

reason for the creating and sustaining

the national park system. In developing

the winter use plan and environmental

impact statement, the goal of the parks

was to provide for a winter use

experience to a wide range of people,

not just to the most physically fit. Given

the mandate of the Organic Act, to

preserve and provide for public

enjoyment, some level of adverse impact

from visitor use during the winter is

acceptable, if the parks mitigate the

impacts to the greatest extent

practicable. Should future monitoring

disclose that the impacts are too much

for the resources to sustain, it will be

appropriate to further restrict winter

visitor use in the parks.

How Environmental Issues Were

Considered and Addressed

Considering present winter use

activities, the key management concerns

and objectives relating to park resources

and values are: Air quality, wildlife

(especially ungulates), natural

soundscapes, and opportunities for

visitor experience (of these resources

and values, including scenic quality and

aesthetics). Related concerns that are

key elements in the desired condition

are the safety of employees and visitors,

and access for purposes of park

enjoyment. Finally, there is an issue

regarding how local, private commercial

industries have developed to serve

visitors and facilitate their enjoyment of

the parks.

Natural Resources

The analysis of natural resource/

environmental consequences for a range

of alternatives shows clearly that there

are overall adverse impacts associated

with snowmobile use in the parks, even

when some areas are closed to that use.

Snowmobile use at current levels

adversely affects wildlife, air quality,

and natural soundscapes and natural

odors. Further, it adversely impacts the

enjoyment of those values and resources

by other visitors. The impact on people

who may visit the three parks once or

twice in a lifetime, and who seek the

resources and values for which the

parks were created, may be adversely

and irretrievably affected.

Elimination of these impacts is most

easily and effectively accomplished by

eliminating snowmobile use. Holding

use at current levels under all

alternatives but G would allow

documented adverse impacts of

snowmobiles to continue. The level of

adverse impact varies by resource or

value, and by alternative, but it is

demonstrated to be more than negligible

and often moderate when considered

cumulatively over the three park units.

Locally, the impact can be major. The

effect on resources and values is

demonstrated to impact the enjoyment

of those resources by other visitors.

Mitigation of the impacts of

snowmobiles, as proposed in the

different alternatives, is insufficient to

reduce the impacts to a level deemed

acceptable within the constraints of the

law, regulations, executive orders and

policies presented as the basis for this

decision. Reduction of numbers of

snowmobiles is problematic because

carrying capacity studies are left to the

future, and adverse impacts would

continue until capacities are determined

and effectively implemented.

Other winter uses and means of

access also produce impacts. Cross

country skiing and other nonmotorized

forms of recreation are shown to impact

wildlife. Since there are areas that can

be identified as critical to bison and

other ungulates, mitigation as proposed

in some alternatives effectively reduces

or eliminates the impairment.

Snowplane use, though limited to

Jackson Lake, has a dominant and

unmitigated impact on the natural

soundscape.

The use of snowcoaches on groomed

roads is demonstrated to impact

wildlife, air quality, and natural

soundscapes. However, mass transit

snowcoach use effectively mitigates the

closure of parks to snowmobiles and

results in much less traffic while

allowing winter access for current levels

of visitation. Snowcoaches would

impact resources or values, or the

enjoyment of them (at the current level

of visitation) at least a magnitude lower

than with snowmobile access. Adverse

impacts of an NPS managed snowcoach

system on wildlife, as in alternative G,

would occur at low and mitigable levels.

Factors Other Than Environmental

Consequences Considered in Making the

Decision

Safety and Access

Safety issues are related to access

issues. Modes of access and volumes of

traffic are primary factors. Presently

unsafe conditions can be improved, as

proposed in several alternatives, by

separating different uses and modes of

transport, by eliminating wheeled

vehicle use in places, and by

eliminating large volumes of oversnow

motorized use especially where

ungulates use groomed surfaces. Safety

would be most improved where a

number of these measures are

combined, as in alternatives F and G.

All alternatives hypothesize impacts on

the basis of motorized oversnow access

at current use levels. However, there are

different mixes of snowcoach,

snowplane, and snowmobile use,

distributed differently through the range

of alternatives. In some areas,

snowmobiles operate on groomed trails

in the same locale as nonomotorized

visitors, wheeled vehicles and large

ungulates. Therefore, there is a risk that

continued snowmobile use would result

in accidents and is unsafe. In some

places, the volume of wheeled vehicle

traffic during the winter—much of

which is associated with snowmobile

staging—results in a higher rate of

accidents. This represents a situation

that must be remedied. The selected

alternative eliminates the source of most

safety concerns, snowmobile use, as

well as wheeled vehicle use on a

plowed road that currently has a high

winter accident rate (Highway 89/287

from Colter Bay to Flagg Ranch).

Discontinued plowing of the route from

Colter Bay to Flagg Ranch would also

convert Flagg Ranch to an oversnow

destination. This would provide a new

opportunity of that nature, similar to

that available at Old Faithful in

Yellowstone’s interior. Opportunities

for developing winter recreation around

Flagg Ranch are abundant. There is a

perception that not plowing the road

would make a snowcoach trip from

Colter Bay to Old Faithful too long.

Flagg Ranch, as a destination, allows

people the opportunity to break this trip

up if they are unwilling or unable to

make the trip to Old Faithful in one day.

Economic Impacts on Local

Communities

The impacts of any alternative on

economies beyond the gateway

communities are generally negligible.

Gateway communities are affected in

different alternatives by entrance

closure or area closure (D and F), or

80916 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

17 I believe the analysis indicating that decreased

use in the parks would result in decreased use

generally in the Greater Yellowstone Area, thereby

reducing use on forests not increasing it, is sound.

18EO 11644, sections (3) and (4), and 16 USC

406d–1, et seq.

closure to snowmobiles and change in

allowable modes of motorized access (B,

C and G). Economically, West

Yellowstone is most affected through

the range of alternatives because that

community is most directly tied to

access via snowmobile. Not

coincidentally, the West Entrance to Old

Faithful is the most adversely impacted

oversnow route in the three-unit area.

Consistency With Land Use Plans,

Policies or Controls for Adjacent Lands

Impacts on adjacent lands for all

alternatives are described on pages 434–

474 in the FEIS. There are concerns

about how any reduction in snowmobile

use within the three parks would

translate into increased use on national

forest lands in particular. The Forest

Service, a cooperating agency, indicates

that alternative G could result in

conditions that would necessitate

amendments to forest plans because

snowmobile use on those lands is at the

highest tolerance level permissible. My

determination is that use on national

forests is likely not to increase.17

Further, the forests have provided no

convincing evidence or monitoring data

to support their concerns, or to support

that the need to revisit their forest plans

does not already exist. I consider that

the period of three years being allowed

for a transition to snowcoaches only in

the parks will facilitate the monitoring

of recreational snowmobile use on

public lands (national forests) in the

Greater Yellowstone Area. I agree that

such monitoring is necessary to develop

a baseline for gauging the impacts of

future winter management changes on

public lands, and resources therein.

Therefore, this is part of the rationale for

allowing a three-year phase in period.

Potentially affected States and

counties were involved as cooperating

agencies in the preparation of this EIS

(see pages 16–18 in the FEIS). Through

the process, these entities identified no

issues concerning conflicts with any

land use plans, policies or controls that

may exist. Any such impacts are

inferred in the analysis (FEIS pages

434–435). Concerns expressed by the

cooperators are twofold. On the one

hand, they are concerned about

increased use on adjacent lands

resulting from the parks’ decision, and

how it would affect other public lands,

wildlife habitat, and currently groomed

snowmobile trail systems. On the other

hand, they are concerned that the

decision would devastate local

economies by drastically reducing

snowmobile use and visitation to the

area. These positions are in conflict. My

assessment is: first, that snowmobile use

is likely to decrease, or at least not

increase, on adjacent lands; and second,

that snowcoach access to the parks will

invigorate local entrepreneurs in

marketing a special (albeit different)

park experience. As explained

elsewhere, the effect of alternative G on

local economies is expected to be of

short-term duration—mitigated by

provisions for implementation over time

and allowing communities and

businesses to adapt.

Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Comments on the draft EIS are

discussed explicitly in the public

participation section of this record of

decision. The vast majority of the

comments did not substantively address

the merits of the EIS analysis. Many

comments assisted NPS in clarifying or

otherwise improving the disclosure of

impacts in the FEIS (as documented in

FEIS Volume III). Most comments (94%)

expressed some preference for winter

use management that resembled some

alternative evaluated in the draft EIS. I

wish to make clear that, although it is

not the primary rationale for this

decision, the public expression of

preference is certainly a factor that I

considered. The public’s preference in

the large body of comment was evenly

divided between those who clearly

wished for continued snowmobile use

and those who felt that snowmobiles

should not be allowed in the parks. Four

percent of those who commented

indicated there should be no motorized

use or grooming of winter routes in the

parks. The overwhelming negative

reaction to the preferred alternative B in

the draft EIS, which would have plowed

the road from West Yellowstone to Old

Faithful, was a factor in considering a

new preferred alternative for the final

EIS.

Findings

Park Values and Resources

The use of snowmobiles and

snowplanes at present levels harms the

integrity of the resources and values of

these three parks, and so constitutes an

impairment of the resources and values,

which is not permissible under the NPS

Organic Act. In YNP, the impairment is

the result of the impacts from

snowmobile use on air quality, wildlife,

the natural soundscape, and

opportunities for enjoyment of the park

by visitors. In GTNP, the impairment is

the result of the impacts from

snowmobile and snowplane use on the

natural soundscape and opportunities

for enjoyment of the park by visitors. In

the Parkway, the impairment is the

result of impacts form snowmobile use

on air quality, the natural soundscape,

and opportunities for enjoyment of the

park.

Under the NPS Organic Act, the NPS

may not allow the impairment of park

resources and values, and when there is

an impairment, the NPS must eliminate

it. The combination of actions provided

for in this Record of Decision will

eliminate the impairment in GTNP

following the winter of 2001–2002, and

in YNP and the Parkway following the

winter of 2002.

We have also determined that the

snowmobile use now occurring is

inconsistent with the requirements of

the Clean Air Act (in the case of YNP

and the Parkway), Executive Orders

11644 and 11989, the NPS’s general

snowmobile regulations, and NPS

management objectives for the parks.

We have determined that the snowplane

use occurring in GTNP is inconsistent

with Executive Orders 11644 and 11989

and NPS management objectives for the

parks.

We have determined that the

snowcoach use that will occur in YNP

and the Parkway under this decision,

and the snowmobile use that will

continue in GTNP in the winter of

2002–2003 and thereafter is consistent

with the requirements of Executive

Orders 11644 and 11989 and the NPS’s

general snowmobile regulations.

There is no current means of

mitigation, aside from a reduction of

numbers unsupported by a carrying

capacity analysis, that assures recreation

snowmobile use impacts could be

reduced, predictably and soon, to a level

that does not impair and adversely

impact these resources and values.

Snowmobile use for official

administrative or emergency purposes

in the three park units is specifically

allowed under the regulations and

executive orders cited herein as the

basis for the decision. Incidental

amounts of snowmobile use in GTNP for

purposes of winter access to inheld

private lands or to adjacent public lands

as provided under the establishment

legislation for the park.18 These are not

recreation uses, per se, that are the

subject of analysis in the FEIS.

Clean, quiet and odorless

snowmobiles are not available at

present. Even with technical advances

in snowmobiles, the impacts of

snowmobile use on wildlife, especially

ungulates using groomed routes,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80917

constitutes disturbance and harassment

at a time when individual animals are

particularly challenged for survival. The

continued use of snowmobiles as

provided in the alternatives studied

other than alternative G is found to be

inconsistent with the health and

integrity of resources existing in the

three park units. Continued use hinders

the enjoyment of resources and values

for which the parks were created, most

notably natural soundscapes, clean and

clear air, and undisturbed wildlife in a

natural setting.

The social and economic impacts of

the elimination of most snowmobile use

in the parks can be mitigated to a high

degree by providing oversnow access

using mass transit snowcoaches.

Considering the analysis of alternatives,

there is a clear magnitude of difference

between the impacts of snowmobiles

and the impacts of snowcoaches on

natural resource values and the

opportunities to enjoy them. This

rationale supports the selection of

alternative G.

The use of groomed routes by

snowcoaches adversely affects wildlife,

air quality, natural soundscapes, and the

opportunity to enjoy those values, as

disclosed in the FEIS, although the

adverse effects are negligible to minor.

These impacts are found not to impair

those values and opportunities. This is

due to the overall decrease in impacts

to a level described as negligible—with

greatly decreased volumes of traffic and

consequent decreases in odor, noise,

and pollutants. The area within the

three park units that would be available

for use without audible motorized

sound would be maximized using

snowcoach access. An NPS managed

mass transit snowcoach system would

assertively implement available

technologies for further reducing the

amount of sound and pollution created.

It would assertively implement

schedules and strategies and controls for

minimizing impacts on wildlife due to

use of groomed surfaces. Additionally,

because operators of snowcoaches will

be familiar with park roadways and

trained in appropriate techniques for

mitigating the effects of vehicle-wildlife

encounters the potential for wildlife

harassment will be minimized.

Skiing and other nonmotorized uses

adversely affect wildlife, particularly

bison, elk, moose, and bighorn sheep.

Backcountry use, in particular, stresses

these ungulates at a time when their

energy reserves are low. In areas

adjacent to high use nonmotorized

routes animals may adapt to regular

passage by humans using a predictable

route. Nonmotorized trail use therefore

has fewer adverse impacts than does

unrestricted backcountry use. Therefore

by limiting nonmotorized use in certain

winter habitats to designated routes,

adverse impacts of nonmotorized use

are suitably reduced. Where the impacts

of nonmotorized travel on wildlife

cannot be suitably mitigated through

route restrictions critical winter range

will be closed. With this mitigation,

limited nonmotorized use is found to be

consistent with park resources and

values, and it facilitates their

enjoyment. FEIS alternative G closes

certain important winter wildlife habitat

to nonmotorized use, and limits use in

other areas to designated trails and

routes only.

Safety and Access

The analysis shows that impacts on

safety of visitors and employees are

associated with snowmobile use. It is

found that current use by snowmobiles

represents a risk to health and safety.

This risk is mitigated to the highest

degree in alternative G. Risks associated

with NPS managed snowcoach systems

are negligible, since there would be

greater controls over speed, time of

operation, driver training and

experience, and the volume of traffic on

the route. In addition, this system offers

access to the public that is equivalent in

numbers to current use. In doing so, the

parks would be accessible to a larger

population of young, elderly, and

disabled visitors.

Economic Impacts on Local

Communities

It has been found that snowmobile

use as currently constituted, and as

evaluated in the range of alternatives,

adversely impacts and impairs park

resources and values. Therefore, the use

must be discontinued in order to meet

the primary mandates, regulations and

policies of the national park service.

This has clear economic impacts on all

the local, gateway communities,

permittees and concessions that are

highly dependent upon winter

snowmobile use in the parks. However,

the greatest impact on these

communities would be closing the parks

to winter motorized access entirely.

Alternative G offers an opportunity for

the same level of access that currently

exists, while improving opportunities

for people who cannot or choose not to

ride snowmobiles. It is found that the

cessation in the future of plowing a

portion of the southern route into YNP,

in addition to improving safety, would

create additional opportunities for

people to enjoy a destination winter

area (Flagg Ranch) using oversnow

transport.

Due to economic impacts (as

disclosed in the FEIS), measures are

incorporated into the implementation

features of alternative G to allow

communities, permittees and

concessioners time to adapt.

Considering the economic impacts,

three years are to be allowed for

conversion to an NPS managed

snowcoach system, and existing

concession contracts will be honored

until they expire. During the first year,

snowmobile use will be continue under

existing regulations. During the second

year of implementation, snowmobile

use will be subject to daily limits based

on historic peak day use, to avoid the

occurrence of days with even higher use

than in the past. Then, one more year

of snowmobile use, at approximately

50% of current levels, will be allowed.

This affords snowmobile operators three

years to take advantage of existing

technology for snowcoaches, to realize

the investment they presently have in

snowmobiles, and to market new

opportunities. NPS will produce an

implementation plan as soon as possible

to develop the details of snowcoach

transport in the parks. This plan will be

developed in coordination with gateway

communities, concessioners and

permittees in order to insure successful

implementation of the alternative. NPS

will also work with these entities to

develop and implement a new

marketing strategy for winter recreation

in the parks.

Additional measures will be used to

reduce impacts to the degree possible

during the interim period. This

mitigation includes, but is not limited

to, the following measures (see also the

actions and mitigation sections of the

decision, above).

During the interim period,

snowmobile and snowplane use will be

monitored and managed in a manner

that prevents or mitigates local impacts

to the greatest extent practicable;

Ranger patrols will be increased to

facilitate monitoring as well as detection

and on-the-spot handling of impacts

particularly for wildlife disturbance.

Park concessions will be required to

mitigate impacts on air quality by

selling only bio-fuels and synthetic

lubes inside the park;

Snowmobile tour guides shall receive

additional training in appropriate

methods of avoiding wildlife

disturbance, and park personnel will

assertively provide similar information

to all other users. Prohibit late night

oversnow travel.

In the third year of the phase-in

period, all recreation snowmobile users

in YNP must be accompanied by a

permitted guide and travel in groups of

80918 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

no more than 11 (including the guide).

The superintendent will be authorized

to also require groups and guides in

GTNP and the Parkway.

A phase-in period of three years is

necessary to allow the creation and

implementation of a functional mass

transit system using snowcoaches.

Measures Taken To Avoid

Environmental Harm

The focus of the EIS analysis is to

improve environmental conditions

relative to those which exist due to

current use and management.

Alternative G best improves

environmental conditions, as

demonstrated in the FEIS and this

decision rationale. Therefore, the

features of selected alternative G and the

mitigation that applies with this

decision are construed as measures

taken to avoid environmental harm. If

future monitoring, as provided in this

decision, indicates that impacts are too

great to sustain additional use, or that

impairment occurs, it will be

appropriate to implement further

management changes. Monitoring plans

will describe standards or thresholds of

impact, and management actions that

will be taken if standards are not met.

See the monitoring section of the

decision, above.

Public Involvement

Scoping

The NPS accepted public scoping

comments from April 14 to July 18,

1998. Scoping brochures were mailed to

about 6,000 interested parties, and 12

public meetings were held throughout

the GYA and in Idaho, Montana, and

Wyoming. In addition to local area and

regional meetings, the NPS held four

national meetings in Salt Lake City,

Denver, Minneapolis, and Washington

D.C. About 2,000 comment letters were

received (about 1,200 of these were form

letters), from which about 15,000

discrete comments were obtained.

Scoping respondents included

businesses; private and nonprofit

organizations; local, state and federal

agencies; and the public at large.

Comments were received from 46 states

and several foreign countries.

Summary of Public Scoping Comment

Comments received during scoping

cover a full range of topics including

issues, concerns, analysis questions,

procedural questions, general opinions,

and requests. Comments were sorted

into the categories shown in Table 2,

pages 22–24 in the FEIS .

The NPS addressed all comments

received in one of two ways: (1) Either

they were analyzed in detail through the

development of an alternative or as a

possible impact of winter use; or (2)

they were not analyzed further based on

the rationale presented in FEIS Volume

II, Appendix A. The NPS classified

comments as major issues or concerns to

be analyzed in detail based on relevance

to the decision to be made. The

following section, Major Issues,

describes in greater detail those

comment categories considered

relevant. Issues or Concerns Not

Addressed in the Plans/EIS describes

specific types of comments not carried

forward for in-depth analysis, and the

rationale for their dismissal.

Major Issues

This section summarizes the major

issues that relate to the purpose and

need for action for the future of winter

use in the three NPS units. These issues

parallel the existing conditions

identified in the FEIS in the purpose

and need for action. While common

concerns exist among the issues, they

are categorized for purposes of analysis

and alternative formulation. Because the

decision regarding the future of winter

use in the GYA is largely programmatic,

relevant issues are those that bear on: (1)

Winter programs that might be

necessary to address existing

circumstances and achieve desired

conditions; and (2) the effects of those

programs. An issue is defined as a point

of contention about the specific possible

environmental effect of a specific

management action or program.

Generally, comments on the DEIS about

the details of implementing a program

are not considered major issues.

Implementation details will be

important during future site-specific

analyses under the new plan.

Another opportunity for public

involvement is the ability to comment

on the DEIS. No new major issues were

identified as a result of public

comments on the DEIS. FEIS Volume III

contains the analysis of public

comments on the DEIS, and responses to

the comments. Major issues are

described below.

Visitor Use and Access

Various user groups contend that the

national parks offer either too much or

not enough of various types of use.

Some people are concerned that the

parks do not offer an adequate range of

winter experiences and will not be able

to respond to future winter recreation

demand. Others suggested that winter

experiences should include

dogsledding, off-road motorized play

areas, and increases in both groomed

motorized and nonmotorized trails.

Other people voiced concerns about too

much winter use, suggesting that YNP

should be closed in part or altogether,

for the winter season. Because of the

amount of use relative to the available

facilities, both ski and snowmobile use

sometimes occurs on the same groomed

surface. This adds to the perception of

too much use, and leads to other issues

relating to visitor experience and safety.

Many people contend that motorized

use has greatly affected opportunities

for nonmotorized use in the

surrounding GYA, displacing crosscountry skiing and other nonmotorized

recreation to the parks. Another aspect

of the issue relates to the affordability of

winter access, and access for disabled,

and old and young visitors. Some argue

for increased availability of motorized

access (via snowmobile in particular) to

serve these access needs. Another issue

is the high cost of winter access to the

parks.

Visitor Experience

Expectations for quality winter

recreation experiences are different for

different user groups. This raises

contention between groups for which

quiet, solitude, and clean air needs

conflict with the impacts of

snowmobiles, especially when facilities

for these different groups are in close

proximity to each other. Nonmotorized

users are easily affected or displaced by

the sight, sound, and odor of

snowmobiles. While skiing generally

does not affect the quality of the

snowmobiling experience, there are

safety issues associated with slower

traffic on groomed surfaces used by

higher speed vehicles. In addition the

quality of the visitor experience can be

affected by the number of available

support facilities (such as parking lots

or rest rooms), the extent to which

facilities are crowded, and the

availability of information.

Human Health and Safety

Four primary health and safety issues

were identified regarding winter visitor

use:

• The effect of motorized vehicular

emissions and noise on employees who

are required to travel or work in areas

with high traffic levels. Visitors may be

subjected to some of the same impacts.

• Speed limits and the frequency of

motor vehicle accidents and fatalities,

and the number of nighttime collisions

involving wildlife that often result in

severe injury or fatality to both animals

and people.

• Avalanche hazards.

• Safety risks where different modes

of winter transport are co-located or in

close proximity, like the CDST where

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80919

wheeled-vehicles and snowmobiles

share the highway right-of-way.

Social and Economic Issues

Many comments reflected the effect of

changes in parks management actions

on local communities. Local businesses

provide services to visitors near both

parks, and many local economies rely,

in part, on revenues from parks visitors

in the winter. Concern was voiced that

eliminating oversnow travel and

snowmobiles in particular or closing an

entrance to a park during the winter

could have a detrimental effect on local

economies. Other commenters stated

that concern for parks’ resources should

be elevated above economics.

Natural Resources

Impacts of winter use on natural

resources revolve around three major

issues.

• The impact of groomed surfaces and

their use on wildlife: Over the last

several years, bison have been removed

from the population because they have

migrated from YNP to state and private

lands during the winter. Some people

commented on the effect that

backcountry skiing might have on

wildlife, particularly the displacement

of large ungulates from important winter

range.

• Air quality: The effect of

snowmobile emissions on air quality

was identified as a concern with respect

to health, natural resources, and

aesthetic and wilderness values. For

example, on high snowmobile use days

in YNP, the visual evidence and odor of

snowmobile exhaust is apparent in

some areas. The effect of hydrocarbons,

carbon monoxide, and particulate

matter emitted by snowmobiles on

water quality was also a concern.

• Oversnow vehicle sound: The

sound levels of snowmobiles and

snowcoaches were raised as issues with

regard to aesthetics and wilderness

values. For example, on some days it is

difficult for most visitors to travel to an

area in YNP where snowmachines

cannot be heard. For this reason some

people question whether the use of

snowmobiles and snowcoaches is

appropriate in the national parks. Other

people state that the sound of

snowmachines has no impact on their

ability to enjoy the parks.

Issues or Concerns Not Addressed in

the Plans/EIS

Scoping issues and concerns that

were not addressed in the EIS are listed

below. The rationale for their dismissal

may be found in the FEIS on pages 26–

28. Essentially the reason for dismissal

is that the issue is being dealt with in

another analysis, is beyond the scope of

the purpose and need for action, or is a

matter that is governed by procedural

laws (like the National Environmental

Policy Act—NEPA).

• Privatization

• Summer/Winter Use Comparisons

• Wildlife Carrying Capacities

• Land Use

• Economic Effects: Costs

• EIS Process

• Cooperating Agencies

• NEPA and NPS Policy

• Scientific Methods and Data

Federal Register Notices

A notice of intent to prepare an EIS

was published in the Federal Register

on April 15, 1998, officially beginning

the scoping process. A notice of

availability for the Winter Use Plan and

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) for Yellowstone and Grand Teton

National Parks and the John D.

Rockefeller Jr., Memorial Parkway

appeared in the Federal Register,

August 15, 1999. The notice indicated

that the public comment due date was

November 15. The comment period was

extended twice, once to December 1,

1999, and again to December 15, 1999.

Notices of these deadline extensions

were published in the Federal Register.

The notice of availability for the FEIS

was published on October 20, 2000.

Distribution of the Draft Environmental

Impact Statement

In August 1999, postcards were

mailed to 6000 persons notifying them

of the impending release of the DEIS.

Approximately 4,000 draft documents

and summaries were mailed to

interested parties during September

1999. In addition, documents were

mailed to agencies, businesses,

organizations, and public officials who

had either requested the document or

were generally interested in the

management of winter use in the parks.

Public Meetings/Hearings

Sixteen public meetings using an

open house format were held early in

the scoping period ranging from April

through July of 1998. Meetings were

held in each of the five gateway

communities to the three park units.

Other meetings were held within the

region at Dubois and Casper, Wyoming,

Billings and Bozeman, Montana, and

Boise, Ashton and Pocatello, Idaho.

Meetings outside the region were held at

Denver, Colorado, Minneapolis,

Minnesota, Salt Lake City, Utah, and

Washington, D.C. Public hearings to

solicit public comment on the DEIS

were held during the month of October

1999 in the following cities: Idaho Falls,

Idaho; West Yellowstone and

Livingston, Montana; Cody and Jackson,

Wyoming; and Denver, Colorado. The

proceedings of each hearing were

transcribed and entered into the record.

An average of 45 persons spoke at each

hearing.

Comments on the Draft Environmental

Impact Statement

Over 48,600 pieces of correspondence

were received in response to the DEIS.

Correspondence consisted of individual

letters, form letters, e-mails, telephone

calls, and hearing presentations. This

body of comment is summarized,

categorized, indexed and responded to

in Volume III (parts one, two, and three)

of the FEIS. Part one includes the

summary, individual letters and specific

responses to the contents of the letters.

Part two includes the variety of form

letters received (separate letters having

the same content) and specific

responses to their content. Part three

contains the results of compiling all

comments from all sources, categorizing

and summarizing them, and then

providing a response to each. This

approach was considered necessary

owing to the extreme volume of public

comments on the DEIS. Following is a

brief analysis of recurrent themes in the

body of comment, and how NPS

responds to them.

Many commenters expressed

consternation about the lack of a ‘‘no

snowmobiling’’ alternative in the DEIS,

and suggested that impact descriptions

and data to support the EIS and the

preferred alternative were not detailed

enough. NPS responds first, that a ‘‘no

snowmobiling’’ alternative was

provided in the DEIS—alternative G.

Secondly, in some cases the NPS has

added information to support the

analysis of impacts in the FEIS.

Additionally, NPS is engaged in

programmatic planning, rather than

project-specific planning; therefore

analysis and data collection have been

conducted on a reconnaissance level.

Further, where data is lacking or

unavailable even at that level, CEQ

regulations provide for the decision

process to continue based on best

available data and professional

application of credible methods.

Many people stated they could not

support any of the DEIS alternative

‘‘mixes.’’ A large number of comments

levied criticism on the preferred

alternative—to the point that

constructive comments on the other

alternatives were greatly lacking. Three

additional ‘‘alternatives’’ were

proposed: Revised Alternative E (in

various forms provided by cooperating

agencies and the Blue Ribbon Coalition),

80920 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

19Most features of Revised Alternative E and The

Citizens’ Solution were covered within the DEIS

range of alternatives. Certain features were either

considered to be implementation details or outside

the scope of analysis. The Natural Regulation

Alternative, by advocating no motorized access or

groomed routes, was considered outside the scope

of analysis—although some alternatives close

sections of the parks to motorized use, and adaptive

management could conceivably result in other

sections being closed over time.

20The CEQ definition of special expertise is:

‘‘statutory responsibility, agency mission, or related

program experience.’’ (40 CFR 1508.26)

21Montana has a state law governing

environmental policy: Montana Environmental

Policy Act.

the Citizens’ Solution (provided by a

consortium of conservation groups), and

the Natural Regulation Alternative

(provided by The Fund for Animals).19

All such comments were read as the

decisions that people would like to see

the NPS make, based upon their

opinions about impacts and their

interpretations about laws.

The body of comment included little

substantive information beyond that

disclosed in the DEIS, and did not

demonstrate that an alternative (feature)

did not belong in the range of choices

available for the decision-maker. Given

the ability of a decision-maker to mix

features from the FEIS range of

alternatives, much of the criticism in the

public comment does not apply to the

analysis. Regarding the great amount of

comment on the preferred alternative,

and perceived lack of justification for it,

the NPS responds by saying that such

criticism is more appropriately applied

to the decision. In fact, the NPS changed

the preferred alternative between draft

and final EIS whereupon most of these

comments no longer apply.

Some commenters said that the

desired conditions or objectives were

too general, and that there is no

demonstrated need for management

change. In effect, such comments

missed the real issues that are conveyed

by statements of existing conditions.

The NPS responds by explaining that

the EIS is programmatic, leading to a

plan, which is general in nature. In

addition issues regarding resource

impacts, health and safety, and visitor

experience are documented sufficiently

by the NPS to indicate the need for

major management changes supported

by a new plan.

Given the scope of analysis, the NPS

developed alternatives (alternative

plans) as possible ways to proceed from

the current condition toward the desired

condition. The NPS maintains that

public access during the winter is an

appropriate objective to be achieved.

Accommodating a variety of recreational

uses is also valid. In each case, activities

must be evaluated in terms of impacts

on parks’ resources and values, health

and safety, and visitor enjoyment.

Alternatives that vary the location,

amount and proximity of uses are

needed to assess the relative impact or

change from the current condition. The

EIS expresses impacts or changes in

terms that allow people to understand

how each alternative satisfies the

purpose and need for action. It is

unreasonable to expect that all

alternatives would address all aspects of

the purpose and need equally, or that all

alternatives worthy of consideration

would have no impacts. In the final

analysis, the NPS concludes that the

purpose and need for action articulated

in the EIS is appropriate, and that the

range of alternatives considered in

detail is adequate. See Comparison of

Alternatives at the end of this decision

document.

Public Response to the FEIS

The FEIS was published and available

to the public in hardcopy and on the

internet on October 10, 2000.

Summaries of the FEIS were mailed to

about 46,500 interested parties, and

about 400 copies of the FEIS were

mailed at that time. The public was able

to provide comments up until October

31. Due to the potential public

controversy of the selection of

alternative G as the preferred alternative

in the FEIS, the former Assistant

Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and

Parks agreed to solicit public comment

on that document. About 10,970

comment documents were received,

including letters, e-mails, and postcards.

Comments were read and evaluated

regarding their content. A comment

summary is attached to this decision

(Attachment B). Generally, there were

more respondents favoring elimination

of snowmobiles from the parks than

those who support continued

snowmobiling. State and local

governments and most business

interests who responded favor

continued snowmobiling.

Consultation

Cooperating Agencies

The details of cooperation with other

agencies are provided on pages 16–17

and Appendix A of the FEIS. In

summary, State and county

governments surrounding the GYA

requested and were granted cooperating

agency status (40 CFR 1501.6) in

December 1997 and January 1998. The

NPS requested that the US Forest

Service become a cooperating agency

because of possible impacts on

surrounding national forests from

changes in the parks’ winter use

management; and the USFS acceded.

Agreements were developed to assign

formal roles in the EIS process and

establish expectations. The NPS held its

first meeting with the cooperating

agencies on February 13, 1998.

Appendix A in the FEIS (Volume II)

further discusses coordination with

cooperating agencies.

Through the EIS process, NPS made it

clear that veto or decision-making

power does not accompany cooperating

agency status. As the lead agency

charged with carrying out the NEPA

process under Sec. 102(2)(c) of NEPA,

the NPS retains sole decision-making

authority over the EIS and its process.

There were a number of comments on

the DEIS relating to the designation of

cooperating agencies. Many people

objected to the inclusion of the counties

in particular, feeling that their

involvement biased the decision-making

process and the EIS; others felt that the

NPS did not involve or listen to the

cooperating agencies. Most cooperators

stated that there was insufficient time or

information to provide adequate input

to the NPS, and that the NPS had not

met the terms of the signed memoranda

of agreement. Conversely, many of the

cooperating agencies commented that

they had provided good information

that the NPS did not consider or

incorporate. A table that illustrates the

extent to which the NPS interacted with

cooperating agencies is contained in

Appendix A of the FEIS.

The NPS believes that much of the

criticism from cooperating agencies

stems from the time frame for producing

this EIS, which is noted in the

cooperating agreements, a lack of

experience, and a fundamentally

different perspective on the issues. Few

federal agencies have experience

dealing with such a large number of

cooperating agencies on a single NEPA

project. With the exception of the USFS

and the State of Montana, few of the

cooperating agencies have experience

producing environmental impact

statements, and the analyses necessary

in their areas of special expertise.20 21

NPS believes it met all of its

responsibilities under the cooperating

agreements to the best of its ability

under the highly constraining time

frame.

American Indian Tribes

The details of consultation with

American Indian Tribes are provided in

the FEIS on pages 18–20. To summarize:

NPS is committed to recognizing the

past and present existence of American

Indians in the region, and the traces of

their use as an important part of the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80921

22Actions taken in accordance with Endangered

Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for

Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities

under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,

March 1998.

23As a matter of process under CEQ regulations,

the impacts of park management that are known or

suspected to occur at other times and places must

be disclosed in the EIS. In this EIS, economic

impacts outside park boundaries are disclosed in

the socioeconomic impacts section. Physical and

resource effects are disclosed in the sections on

adjacent lands and cumulative impacts.

cultural environment to be preserved

and interpreted. NPS initiated

consultation along with scoping in May

1998 in accordance with the

Presidential Memorandum of April 29,

1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government

Relations with Native American Tribal

Governments’’ and in compliance with

a variety of laws, federal regulations,

and agency management policies and

directives. Eight tribes were identified

as being traditionally affiliated with the

GYA.

By April 1999, an additional 13

contemporary tribes had been

recognized by YNP and GTNP as

traditionally affiliated with the GYA.

The NPS notified the 21 affiliated tribes

of an affiliated tribal consultation

meeting to be held at YNP on May 20,

at which the Plans/EIS would be one of

the planning projects and issues

discussed. On April 23, NPS faxed

invitation letters to the tribal

consultation meeting, and four days

later the NPS mailed copies of the draft

alternatives to each tribe. During the

week of May 3, the NPS made followup telephone calls to each of the tribes,

to confirm receipt of the draft

alternatives and encourage participation

in the affiliated tribal consultation

meeting on May 20.

At that meeting, tribal representatives

voiced concerns that oversnow

motorized vehicles, the grooming of

road and trail surfaces, and the

movement of people would negatively

impact YNP’s bison population. The

affiliated tribes received copies of the

DEIS for review and comment in midSeptember 1999, and were notified of

six public hearings on the draft plans in

late-September 1999. On October 6,

1999, members of the Assiniboine and

Sioux (Fort Peck), Cheyenne River

Sioux, Confederated Salish and

Kootenai, Crow, Lac Courte Oreilles,

Nez Perce, Rosebud Sioux, the

Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, and

organizations met with Yellowstone and

Grand Teton staff to discuss the Winter

Use Plans as part of fall 1999

government-to-government tribal

consultation meetings.

The NPS will continue to consult

with representatives of affiliated tribes

as actions resulting from this plan are

implemented. The goal of consultation

is to insure that the affiliated tribes’

interests and concerns are adequately

addressed, as well as to develop and

accomplish future programs in a way

that respects the beliefs, traditions, and

other cultural values of the American

Indian tribes who have ancestral ties to

the area.

State Historic Preservation Offices

In October 1995, a programmatic

agreement was developed among the

National Conference of State Historic

Preservation Offices (SHPO), the

Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation (Council) and the NPS. In

accordance with the agreement and

pursuant to Section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C.

470(f)), consultation with the Wyoming,

Montana, and Idaho SHPOs and the

Council was initiated in May 1998. The

NPS sent copies of the scoping brochure

(May 1998) and the draft preliminary

winter use alternatives (December 1998)

to the SHPOs and the Council. In

accordance with their request, the NPS

continued to consult with the Wyoming,

Montana, and Idaho SHPOs and the

Council regarding actions described in

the Winter Use Plans/EIS that may affect

cultural resources (FEIS Appendix E).

The NPS mailed copies of the Draft EIS

to each SHPO and the Council for

review and comment. Before completion

of the FEIS, the NPS contacted the

SHPOs of all three states directly, and

all offices stated that they had no

comments on the DEIS and saw no need

for further consultation.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The settlement agreement under

which the winter use plan and EIS were

produced also required the NPS to

prepare a biological assessment (BA)

and request formal consultation with

the USFWS pursuant to section 7(a)(2)

of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2) and its

implementing regulations. To comply,

on February 16, 2000 the NPS requested

from the USFWS an updated list of all

federally protected threatened,

endangered, proposed, or candidate

species that might occur in the affected

area (FEIS Appendix D). Because winter

use is highly controversial, and the NPS

was aware of the potential for

considerable post-draft changes, it

elected not to initiate consultation at the

time the DEIS was issued. Instead, a BA

was prepared for the FEIS preferred

alternative, and subsequently submitted

to USFWS on July 5, 2000.22 On October

25, 2000, USFWS provided a letter

concurring with NPS’ determination in

the biological assessment that

implementation of the winter use plans

as proposed is not likely to affect

threatened or endangered species or

migratory birds in the action area. The

letter notes the coordination between

NPS and USFS through the Greater

Yellowstone Coordinating Committee

which resulted in a commitment to

monitor possible but unanticipated

impacts on grizzly bears as a result of

the action.

Alternatives Considered

Alternative Development

Alternative development is described

in detail on pages 31–32 and in

Appendix A of the FEIS. The

alternatives for the Winter Use Plans

and Environmental Impact Statement

for Yellowstone National Park (YNP),

Grand Teton National Park (GTNP) and

the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial

Parkway (the Parkway) were formulated

in response to the major issues and

concerns raised through public and

internal scoping. In addition to the

scoping process, the National Park

Service (NPS) and the cooperating

agencies met in Idaho Falls, Idaho, for

3 days during October 1998 to formulate

initial concepts for alternatives. Later,

similar workshops were conducted with

the staffs in both parks. For a complete

discussion of the concepts generated

during the workshops see FEIS

Appendix A.

The NPS planning team evaluated the

concepts in terms of their

responsiveness to the major issues and

concerns, the decision to be made, and

the purpose and need for the Winter Use

Plans. The concepts were also evaluated

against their adherence to current law,

park management guidelines, and NPS

mandates and policies. Lastly, each

concept was evaluated for its economic

and technical feasibility. The concepts

that best met the above criteria were

packaged into the range of alternatives

discussed below. Each alternative

proposed considers a different means of

achieving the desired condition of the

parks in the winter while minimizing

impacts to park resources.

Scope of Analysis in the FEIS

The scope of analysis determines the

range of alternatives to be considered.

The analysis in the EIS is limited to

recreation during the wintertime (about

December 15 through March 15,

annually). Geographically, the analysis

is limited to recreation management

within the boundaries of the three

national park units.23 Recreational use

considerations and supporting facilities

80922 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

24Many commenters on the DEIS stated that the

‘‘no action’’ alternative must be ‘‘no

snowmobiling’’, and that the court settlement

showed that to be the appropriate course of action.

The park service’s interpretation of ‘‘no action’’

means no change in general management direction

from the present. The settlement agreement did not

include any concessions to claims by The Fund for

Animals, nor did it remove any options within the

park service’s discretion for park management from

the range of alternatives to be considered. In

approving the settlement agreement, the court

asserted that a comprehensive winter use EIS (in

accordance with CEQ regulations) would be

written.

25CEQ 40 Most Asked Questions, question

number 3. Where an existing program is being

evaluated, ‘‘no action’’ is ‘‘no change in

management.’’ ‘‘No action’’ may be thought of as

continuing with the present course of action until

the action is changed. CEQ states that in such

instances, ‘‘to construct an alternative based on no

management at all would be a useless academic

exercise.’’

are limited to those that are technically

possible at the present time or are

feasible for development and

implementation. The range of

alternatives presents options for

motorized and nonmotorized winter

recreational use in the three park units

considering reasonably expected

technological improvements in

emissions and sound of snowmachines.

One alternative evaluates the impacts of

current winter use (per the settlement

agreement and CEQ regulations). In this

instance, ‘‘no action’’ is interpreted as

current management, which is

appropriate for programmatic

planning.24

Alternatives

Alternative A (No Action)

This alternative reflects current use

and management practices in the parks

and meets the requirement for including

a no action alternative in an EIS.25

Alternative A is a baseline for analysis

and reflects existing conditions. Other

alternatives are intended to improve the

existing condition in one or more major

issue areas. Issues associated with

alternative A include visitor access

difficulties, visitor experience conflicts,

unsafe conditions, and resource

impacts.

Alternative B

This alternative provides for a

moderate range of affordable and

appropriate winter visitor experiences.

Key changes in recreational

opportunities include: Plowing the road

from West Yellowstone to Old Faithful

to allow mass transit access by wheeled

vehicles, moving the CDST to a yearround path from Moran to Flagg Ranch,

and phasing out snowmobile use on

Jackson Lake. Over the next 10 years, an

advisory committee would make

recommendations on phasing and

implementing sound and emission

standards for air quality and motor

vehicle sound issues. By winter

2008(2009, strict emission and sound

requirements would be required by all

vehicles entering the parks. In addition

this alternative emphasizes an adaptive

approach to park resource management,

which would allow the results of new

and ongoing research and monitoring to

be incorporated as it becomes available.

Adaptive management increases the

Park Service’s ability to solve visitor

access and experience issues and

resource issues over time. Using the

criteria stated within Executive Order

(EO) 11644 (as amended) and its

implementing regulation (36 CFR 2.18),

monitoring results demonstrating

disturbance to wildlife or damage to

park resources would be cause to

implement actions for mitigating these

conditions (for example, closure to

winter visitor use or trail restrictions).

Alternative C

This alternative provides for

maximum winter visitor opportunities

for a range of park experiences, with

emphasis on motorized recreation,

while mitigating some natural resource

impacts and safety concerns. Key

changes in recreational opportunities

include: plowing the road from West

Yellowstone to Old Faithful to allow

access by wheeled vehicles, providing a

widened highway corridor to

accommodate the CDST, and providing

additional groomed trails for both

motorized and nonmotorized uses. This

alternative directly addresses issues that

arose during scoping about potential

impacts of management change on local

economies. It shows how the range of

winter opportunities could be

preserved, applying mitigation

primarily in the areas of air quality and

sound impacts.

Alternative D

This alternative emphasizes

opportunities for visitor access to the

unique winter aspects of the parks (for

example, geysers, geothermal areas,

wildlife, and scenic vistas), and

protection of those qualities and natural

resources by phasing in cleaner and

quieter modes of travel. It focuses

winter visitor activities near destination

areas and gateway communities. Key

changes in recreational opportunities

include: eliminating motorized

oversnow access to Yellowstone through

its East Entrance, limiting snowmobile

use in Grand Teton and the Parkway to

the CDST and the Grassy Lake Road,

eliminating wheeled-vehicle access

from Colter Bay to Flagg Ranch to

accommodate oversnow vehicles on the

groomed highway surface, and

eliminating snowmobile use on Jackson

Lake. Emphasizing uses in different

areas of the park minimizes conflicts

between nonmotorized and motorized

users, and addresses issues about visitor

access and experience. Support facilities

would have minimal amenities. In this

alternative, visitor access routes and

timing would be modified to provide

safer conditions. Over time, issues

regarding impacts on natural resources

would be addressed, particularly in

Grand Teton and on the east side of

Yellowstone.

Alternative E

This alternative emphasizes the

protection of wildlife and other natural

resources while allowing park visitors

access to a range of winter recreation

experiences. It uses an adaptive

planning approach that allows the

results of new and ongoing research and

monitoring to be incorporated. Key

changes to current recreational

opportunities are: eliminating motorized

oversnow access in Grand Teton and the

Parkway except for use on the Grassy

Lake Road and north of Flagg Ranch

into Yellowstone, and eliminating all

winter motorized use on Jackson Lake.

This alternative addresses the full

range of winter use issues in

Yellowstone over time, but the current

condition would prevail in the short

term. Using the criteria stated in EO

11644 (as amended) and its

implementing regulation (36 CFR 2.18),

monitoring results demonstrating

disturbance to wildlife or damage to

park resources would be cause to

implement actions for mitigating these

conditions (for example, closure to

snowmobile use). Alternative E calls for

instituting an advisory committee to

make recommendations about emission

and sound standards. Local, county,

state, and federal agencies as well as

representatives from the snowmobile

industry and environmental groups

would participate on this committee. In

Grand Teton and the Parkway, the full

range of issues are addressed more

immediately by limiting oversnow

motorized use to the north end of the

park, thus separating uses and

eliminating most resource and visitor

experience conflicts relating to

snowmobile use.

Alternative F

Alternative F emphasizes wildlife

protection. Key changes in recreational

opportunities include: eliminating all

winter access to Yellowstone’s interior

through its North and West Entrances,

eliminating motorized oversnow access

in Grand Teton and the Parkway except

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80923

for use on the Grassy Lake Road and

north of Flagg Ranch into Yellowstone,

and eliminating all winter motorized

use on Jackson Lake. For YNP this

alternative addresses issues regarding

protection of wildlife resources by

focusing winter visitor activities near

scenic areas in the eastern and southern

portions of YNP. These areas are

generally outside important winter

range for large ungulate wildlife species.

In Grand Teton and the Parkway, the

full range of issues is addressed by

limiting oversnow motorized use to the

north end of the park, thus separating

uses and eliminating most resource and

visitor experience conflicts relating to

snowmobile use.

Alternative G (The FEIS Preferred

Alternative)

This alternative emphasizes cleaner,

quieter access to the parks using the

technologies available today. It would

allow oversnow access on all routes

currently available via NPS-managed

snowcoach only. Other key changes in

recreational opportunities include:

eliminating winter plowing on the

Colter Bay to Flagg Ranch route, making

Flagg Ranch a destination via oversnow

transport, and eliminating all winter

motorized use on Jackson Lake. This

alternative addresses the full range of

issues regarding safety, natural resource

impacts, and visitor experience and

access. It addresses the issues in a way

that would make it necessary for local

economies to adapt, and for visitors

wanting motorized oversnow access to

the parks to use snowcoaches rather

than snowmobiles.

Comparison of Alternatives

A comparison of alternative actions

and the effects of the alternatives may

be found in the FEIS beginning on page

66 (Tables 11 and 12). The following

rating process, using the FEIS data, is

designed to illustrate—in a relative

fashion—how each alternative meets the

purpose and need for action. The

purpose and need elements are

equivalent to the impact topics assessed

in the EIS. The rating scale is defined

below.

Rating Definition

+4 ............. Major beneficial impact

+3 ............. Moderate beneficial impact

Rating Definition

+2 ............. Minor beneficial impact

+1 ............. Identifiable but negligible beneficial impact

0 ............... Neutral level—no adverse impact, no beneficial impact

¥1 ........... Identifiable but negligible adverse impact

¥2 ........... Minor adverse impact

¥3 ........... Moderate adverse impact

¥4 ........... Major adverse impact

With reference to the summarized

impacts by alternative in the FEIS

Chapter II (Table 12), a rating was

assigned to each cell; e.g., where a major

beneficial impact was disclosed, a +4

was assigned to that block. This

represents a composite rating, and it

should be noted that the detailed effects

analysis represented by the rating is

found in Chapter IV of the FEIS. The

impact topics were weighted equally in

this rating. All impact topics for all

alternatives were rated in this fashion

and then tabulated accordingly. A chart

tabulating the ratings for major impact

topics, or purpose and need elements, is

shown below.

BILLING CODE 4310–0901–09P

80924 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

26For such illustrations, the selection of a rating

scale has many possible permutations. In this case,

a scale showing positive and negative values was

selected in order to better visualize the adverse

impacts as opposed to the beneficial impacts of

each alternative. An added feature of this scale is

that it illustrates the existing condition, represented

by Alternative A, as a condition to be improved in

terms of ‘‘purpose and need’’ elements.

27This explains why the chart shows values up

to +/¥6, when the rating scale for effects is +/¥4.

The ‘‘effects’’ scale does not apply to the second

chart; it is the relative change from alternative A

that is now illustrated.

This chart illustrates effects relative to

a neutral environmental baseline

reflecting an assessment of no

identifiable adverse or beneficial

effect.26 In the EIS, the defined

environmental baseline is the existing

condition, or alternative A (no action).

Therefore, another data set and chart

were generated to normalize the ratings

relative to alternative A. That is, for

each impact topic, the difference

between the ratings for alternative A

and the analogous ratings for each other

alternative was gauged. For example,

alternative A has a rating of +3 for

visitor experience and F has a rating of

¥3 for the same element; the relative

difference (or the scale difference)

between the two is ¥6.27 The resulting

chart, below, shows alternative A as

having no effects relative to the existing

condition, and the other alternatives as

having positive or negative effects

compared to that base. The chart is an

illustration of the extent to which each

alternative meets the purpose and need

for action, moving management from the

existing to the desired condition.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80925

BILLING CODE 4310–01–C

The purpose and need for action, as

expressed in Chapter I of the FEIS, is

illustrated fundamentally by describing

the desired condition for the park units

and comparing it to the existing

condition. The descriptions are made in

terms that relate to park resources and

values, so that there is a direct

relationship with mandates, regulations,

executive orders and policies that direct

NPS in managing resources and values.

The relationship of existing condition to

desired condition is developed through

the most important resources and values

within the context of winter use, as

determined in the FEIS.

The intent of actions proposed in the

alternatives is to change management so

that parks move from their existing

condition toward the desired condition.

Since various important resource

elements make up the existing/desired

condition relationship, it is expected

that different alternatives designed to

emphasize different concerns will

respond differently to the overall

purpose and need for action. As

illustrated in the above chart, this is the

case for winter use alternatives in the

three park units.

The above comparison chart

illustrates the following generalizations.

The existing condition is represented

effectively by alternative A. Comparing

other alternatives to alternative A, it is

clear that all but alternative C respond

positively, overall, to the purpose and

need for action. Alternative E would

improve the condition of all resources

and values (and the opportunity to

enjoy them), compared to alternative A,

but the improvement overall would be

of a fairly low magnitude while

retaining the economic status quo. In

alternative G impacts on all resources/

values would be greatly decreased over

existing conditions, and decreased

overall to a greater extent than in any

other alternative. This improvement

would come primarily at the cost of

economic impacts to local communities,

also shown in the above chart.

Balancing the positive and negative

changes from the existing condition,

alternatives D, B and F rank in that

order below alternative G. All would

adversely impact one or two of the four

gateway communities while improving

resource conditions. Alternative F

would greatly improve resource

conditions, while incurring long-term

adverse impacts on opportunities to

enjoy park resources and values, and on

the winter economies of West

Yellowstone and Gardiner, Montana.

In showing the generalized and

relative comparisons, the chart does not

reflect analysis details. For example,

although alternative F greatly improves

80926 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

resource conditions overall, there would

still be disturbance to wildlife

associated with snowmobile use at

certain times and certain places.

Analysis details such as this apply to all

alternatives. The reader is referred to

Table 12 and Chapter IV in the FEIS,

where the detailed analyses are

summarized and presented respectively.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

Based on reduced impacts to human

health and safety, air quality, visitor

access, the natural soundscape and

wildlife the NPS has identified

alternative G as the environmentally

preferred alternative. The U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, in its

comments on both the Draft and Final

EISs, similarly identifies this alternative

as its environmentally preferred action.

Information Contact

For more information on this decision

or on the FEIS, please contact the offices

of:

Karen Wade, National Park Service—

Intermountain Region, 12795 West

Alameda Parkway, Lakewood, CO

80225.

Steve Iobst, Grand Teton National Park,

PO Drawer 170, Moose, WY 80312

Michael Finley, Yellowstone National

Park, PO BOX 168, Yellowstone,

WY 82190.

Attachment A—Monitoring and

Adaptive Management Plans

Standards, Methods, and Intensity by

Management Zone

Monitoring and Adaptive Management

Introduction

General resource inventory (and

monitoring) and adaptive management

are two approaches to assure the

implementation and success of

management actions. General resource

inventory and monitoring in accordance

with the National Park Service (NPS) 77

Resource Management Guidelines (NPS

1991) is a necessary part of the decision

that proceeds from the Winter Use Final

EIS (See Appendix I). Adaptive

management is also a component of this

decision.

The two approaches are distinguished

by the degree of uncertainty regarding

the impacts to park values. Adaptive

management is an appropriate approach

when important information pertaining

to natural resource and visitor use

management is lacking, and there is a

need to take immediate management

action rather than to wait for additional

information to be collected. It is a

process of implementing management

decisions as scientifically driven

experiments that test predictions and

assumptions in management plans, and

using the resulting information to

improve the plans. General resource

monitoring is appropriate where

standards exist either in laws,

regulations or general management

plans. Techniques must be available to

measure conditions for effective

comparison with the standard.

Additionally, the National Parks

Omnibus Act of 1998 requires a program

of inventory and monitoring of National

Park System resources to establish

baseline information and to provide

information on long-term trends of the

condition of national park system

resources (16 U.S.C. 5934). The service

also must use the results of scientific

research, including monitoring and

inventory, in making decisions about

the management of parks (16 U.S.C.

5936).

The Winter Use EIS identifies

information needs related to winter use

as it may impact critical park values: air

quality, natural quiet, wildlife, aquatic

resources, and visitor experience. Both

adaptive management and monitoring

require standards, or thresholds, to

establish baselines upon which to assess

degradation to monitored park values.

The initial identification of indicators,

standards, methods and management

responses that relate to critical values is

located in FEIS appendix I. This is the

basis for developing monitoring plans

under authority of this decision.

Coordination and Responsibility

Requirements

Monitoring programs will be

coordinated between Yellowstone and

Grand Teton National Parks. The

programs will function and be

coordinated through the planning staffs

of both parks. The development of

annual plans and reports will be

coordinated through the planning units,

and the planning units will be

responsible for delivering those

products to management. Other park

divisions will coordinate with planning,

and provide resources for performing

monitoring tasks.

Adaptive Management Program

The essential first step when

formulating an adaptive management

strategy for the affected environment is

to articulate the critical uncertainties,

particularly where some information is

known about a specific resource but

conclusive evidence is currently

unavailable. Based on current

knowledge, a management scenario is

then designed to test specific

hypotheses relating to the critical

uncertainties. Monitoring and

evaluation strategies are then employed

to evaluate outcomes relative to

acceptable thresholds, and assist in the

development of management

alternatives. Monitoring within the

framework of adaptive management is

critical because of the uncertainty of

predictions based on limited

information. It provides systematic

feedback for management, and allows

adjustment of activities to mitigate

unplanned or undesirable outcomes.

A critical step in adaptive

management involves the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Each

time a new management proposal is

evaluated the analysis must be

documented by performing the

appropriate level of NEPA compliance.

Some actions, such as permanent road

closures to protect wildlife or the

construction of new facilities may

require an additional site-specific NEPA

analysis, which includes public

scoping. Some actions might be

administrative in nature, or be

implementable through application of a

NEPA categorical exclusion (Ref: NPS

12).

The adaptive management process is

shown schematically in Figure 1. Tables

follow that prescribe monitoring

standards, methods and proposed

management actions for critical

resources in each winter management

zone. These are tables 12 through 22.

Monitoring Program

General resource monitoring applies

when adequate information exists to

make informed management decisions.

It is the process of collecting

information to evaluate if the objectives

of a management plan are being

realized. General monitoring techniques

(as opposed to monitoring conducted

within the adaptive management

framework) will be employed to assess

impacts to public health and safety;

geothermal features; water quality;

threatened and endangered species;

trumpeter swans and some aspects of

visitor experience, including access and

circulation. NPS–77, Natural Resources

Management Guideline, will be used

initially as a guide to monitoring

specific resource areas. As new

techniques are developed, or as

commonly accepted procedures become

available, monitoring protocols will

change.

Tables follow that prescribe

monitoring standards, methods and

possible management actions for critical

resources in each winter management

zone. These are tables 1 through 11.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80927

Annual Monitoring and Adaptive

Management Plans

The overall objective for monitoring

and adaptive management is to assess

the long-term effects of management

actions on park resources and values.

Specific objectives accrue to each winter

management zone (FEIS Table xx and

Figures xx and xx). With reference to

the following tables, for each

management zone and for each resource

of concern, monitoring indicators are

presented. For each indicator, a

standard either exists or is hypothesized

(for adaptive management). Also, for

each indicator a monitoring method and

intensity is prescribed. Finally,

management actions are indicated if the

standards should be exceeded.

Monitoring and adaptive management

plans will be developed annually during

workplanning and budget processes for

the coming year. Plans will be

developed through the planning staffs of

both park units. Monitoring will be

conducted on a sampling basis for the

purpose of effective use of funds and

personnel. The guiding principle for

monitoring is to collect purposeful

data—even if the amount is limited—

rather than collecting a great deal of

data that cannot be used statistically to

arrive at valid conclusions. Therefore,

monitoring plans will be brief and will

cover the following items:

• The zones to be sampled, along

with the indicators, standards, and

methods to be used.

• Specific locations for monitoring,

and the planned intensity—frequency of

monitoring.

• A schedule (times) for data

collection and submittal.

• The division or individual that is

responsible for monitoring and

reporting.

It is expected that initial monitoring

will be intensive, both in geographic

and temporal extent, so that correlations

can be made and results can be

extrapolated. It is also expected that

monitoring over time will become less

intensive and arrive at a low intensity,

maintenance level. Sampling schedules

can vary from year to year, focusing on

different areas within the park units.

Monitoring plans will continue to be

coordinated between Yellowstone and

Grand Teton so that common methods

are used, efficiency is achieved, and

results are comparable. Annual

monitoring reports will be written and

publicized through the planning units of

the two parks.

Annual Monitoring and Adaptive

Management Reports

Feedback for management is implicit

in monitoring and adaptive management

programs. In order for feedback to occur,

data must be collected effectively in

accordance with a plan. Data must be

captured in an accessible information

system, capable of evaluation and

statistical manipulation. Then,

evaluations must be put in meaningful

terms for management. The requirement

of a formal report is essential to meet

this need. The report should be

published to a standard that is

appropriate for public consumption.

Annual monitoring reports will be

brief, and will meet the following

requirements:

• Sum up the information collected

during the year.

• Express conclusions relating to each

management zone and indicator that

was monitored.

• Extrapolate the conclusions to other

areas, when possible and appropriate.

• State the need for applying

management actions based on

monitoring.

• Make recommendations for changes

in monitoring locations, protocols,

techniques or thresholds that should be

considered in the monitoring plan for

the following year.

BILLING CODE 4310–01–P

80928 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80929

80930 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80931

80932 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80933

80934 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80935

80936 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80937

80938 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80939

80940 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80941

80942 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80943

80944 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80945

80946 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80947

80948 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80949

80950 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

BILLING CODE 4310–01–C

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80951

Attachment B—Summary of Public

Comments on the FEIS

Summary of Public Comment on the

FEIS

Introduction

After the FEIS was published on

October 10, 2000 the public was invited

to comment up until October 31. The

total body of comment divides into two

basic types. First, the content of most of

the documents fell into categories of

repeated topics, statements and

rationale that were not explicit to the

FEIS analysis. NPS read all pieces of

mail and coded the statements that were

made in each. A summary of this body

of comment is provided in a table with

accompanying conclusions. In this

category, there were about 10,880

responses in the form of letters,

postcards and e-mails. Of these, 6,717

were form letters and 4,163 were not.

A second set of letters and e-mails,

numbering 55, is distinguished by more

discussion specific to the FEIS and the

process that produced it. They generally

provide greater amounts of detail and

rationale for their statements. This set of

correspondence includes the

cooperating agencies, other federal,

tribal, state or local agencies (or their

representatives), concessioners,

advocacy groups, and a number of

individuals. Most had commented

earlier on the Draft EIS. These letters

were read and summarized point by

point for the decision maker, to whom

copies of the letters were also

submitted. This attachment contains a

general summary of the letters, by group

type.

Summary of Coded Comments

Comment letters were coded in order

to determine the following information:

• Support for or against a specific

alternative

• Support for or against individual

components of a specific alternative

• Support for or against a specific

mode of recreational oversnow travel

• Flaws in the analysis presented in

the FEIS

• Pertinent new information or data

that was omitted from the FEIS

• New alternatives that were not

analyzed in the FEIS

Categories of comments and the

number received are listed in the

following table. The comments are

listed with the most often received

comments descending to the least often

received comments. An individual

document may contain from one to

many separate comments.

Count Classification

6446 ....................... I support elimination of snowmobiles in the three park units.

5491 ....................... I support Alternative G.

5424 ....................... The NPS has the responsibility under its mandate to protect resources.

4724 ....................... Snowcoaches are a good means of allowing access while eliminating effects on wildlife and visitor experience.

3324 ....................... I support the use of snowmobiles in the parks.

2392 ....................... The analysis is flawed, science is bad; numbers that Sierra Club gave you . . . are biased; etc.

2177 ....................... The snowmobile industry is trying hard to meet needs for cleaner, quieter snowmobiles.

1735 ....................... Snowmobilers have a right to personal access to the park.

1480 ....................... Snowmobiles don’t impact resources, or have minimal impact.

1413 ....................... Snowmobiles have significant impacts on air quality and the natural soundscape.

1361 ....................... Support for specific alternative Revised E.

1182 ....................... Snowmobiles have significant impacts on wildlife.

890 ......................... Snowmobiles have significant impacts on the winter visitor experience.

867 ......................... I believe that banning snowmobiles is an overkill reaction to problems associated with current snowmobile technology.

663 ......................... Support for specific EIS alternative A.

653 ......................... Alternative G will have devastating economic impacts.

567 ......................... People should be allowed to visit the parks using any means of access they wish.

381 ......................... Summer/winter comparisons... i.e., buses versus snowmobiles, emissions, crowding, wildlife impacts.

323 ......................... The parks are for all the people, not just the ‘‘elite.’’

225 ......................... Alternative G discriminates against snowmobilers; if snowmobiling is eliminated, skiing should be eliminated too.

225 ......................... No Comment.

184 ......................... I would like to see a phase-in of clean and quiet snowmobiles.

142 ......................... Economic impacts of eliminating snowmobile use are overstated.

111 ......................... No Road Grooming.

96 ........................... Support for specific EIS alternative C.

94 ........................... I support clean, quiet and more environmentally friendly snowmobiles or snowcoaches.

91 ........................... Support for specific EIS alternative F.

65 ........................... People who are walking and skiing disturb wildlife more than people who ride on machines.

59 ........................... Support for specific EIS alternative E.

52 ........................... The analysis is good ....(for whatever reason).

45 ........................... The snowmobile industry is not responsive to needed technological changes for environmental protection.

35 ........................... Support for specific EIS alternative B.

18 ........................... No Vehicles.

16 ........................... Pro-snowplane—Snowplanes don’t impact resources.

12 ........................... Support for specific EIS alternative D.

9 ............................. Support for specific alternative Natural Regulation Alternative.

8 ............................. NEPA process is flawed and not enough time to comment on FEIS.

7 ............................. Duplicates.

5 ............................. There is no feasibility analysis for snowcoach operation, snowcoaches will make the park inaccessible.

2 ............................. NPS is not responsive to people who snowmobile or snowplane.

2 ............................. There should be a multiple-use alternative.

1 ............................. NPS should not use military ordinance for avalanche control.

1 ............................. NPS ignored reasonable suggestions from the cooperating agencies.

1 ............................. NPS’ selection was not driven by facts or need for action.

80952 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

One type of comment that was not

included in the overall document count

were e-mails received from an internet

polling site named ‘‘vote.com.’’ The emails that were received were the result

of an ongoing poll about snowmobile

use. People responding to the poll were

asked to vote a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ to the

question ‘‘Should snowmobiles be

banned from Yellowstone Park?’’

Adjacent to the ‘‘yes’’ vote was the

statement, ‘‘People could still take

winter tours in cleaner, quieter snow

coaches.’’ Adjacent to the ‘‘no’’ vote was

the statement, ‘‘Banning recreational

snowmobile users from the park would

hurt local businesses.’’ The results were

619 ‘‘yes’’ votes and 1970 ‘‘no’’ votes.

There was some conflicting information

concerning the privacy policy statement

of ‘‘Vote.com.’’ The site states that the

vote is confidential, but the results

received included the e-mail address of

each person voting. A comment was

also received expressing concern about

the ‘‘Vote.com’’ comments.

Summary of Individual Letter Contents

Federal Government, Tribal

Governments

Comments on the FEIS were received

from: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Senator

Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming, and from

Donald A. Manzullo of the U.S. House

of Representatives’ Committee on Small

Business.

EPA has no environmental objections

to the FEIS preferred alternative. EPA

finds that the FEIS adequately discloses

the impacts of all alternatives, and is

improved from the DEIS by adequately

responding to comments from EPA,

other agencies and the public.

The tribes recommend the

implementation of Alternative F, citing

the description of the alternative as

rationale. They further state that the

trust obligations owed by the U.S. to

American Indian tribes outweighs any

commitment to snowmobilers or other

recreationists , or to the states of

Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. They

feel that government to government

consultation was inadequate.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation expresses

concerns about the ongoing business,

research, data collection and

administrative travel necessary for BOR

to carry out its duties within the parks.

They indicate the FEIS is unclear about

the options BOR has for necessary

travel, since most of the routes used by

the agency are designated for

snowcoach travel only, and that the

agency must travel in the parks to

collect data necessary in forecasting

snowmelt, and reservoir function

including flood control. Winter access is

necessary to meet agency

responsibilities.

U.S. Senate, Senator Michael B. Enzi

of Wyoming expresses deep concerns

about how NPS has mishandled the

opportunity to provide clear direction

and a vision for management. He states

that NPS has chosen to proceed with a

politically biased, predetermined

conclusion that excludes the

community and places the parks out of

reach for most Americans in the winter.

Senator Enzi states that snowcoach

access only is infeasible for several

reasons, and that it is evident the

snowmobile industry has available

technology to comply with any NPS

noise or emission standards NPS might

impose. He also states that NPS violated

NEPA and several other laws in this

process.

Donald A. Manzullo, U.S. House of

Representatives, Committee on Small

Business references testimony from the

July 13, 2000 hearing before the House

Small Business Tax, Finance & Exports

Subcommittee (The Impact of Banning

Snowmobiles Inside National Parks on

Small Business, Serial No. 106–68). He

states that NPS has ignored the main

thrust of the concerns expressed during

the DEIS public comment period by

reiterating support for alternative G. He

feels that a snowcoach only system will

not work and that the economic impacts

from this alternative are large.

State Government, Agencies

Comments were received from the

governors of the States of Idaho,

Montana and Wyoming, and from State

Senator Colin Simpson of Wyoming. All

three states were cooperating agencies

in the effort.

Governor Kempthorne of Idaho

attaches to his letter a note from Carl

Wilgus, cooperating agency

representative from the State of Idaho,

stating that the NPS has ignored,

discounted or minimized the good faith

input from the State of Idaho. Mr.

Wilgus states that the NPS has

repeatedly missed deadlines and then

unreasonably expected the cooperating

agencies to comply with unreasonable

deadlines. He states the NPS

prematurely selected a preferred

alternative before reviewing all of the

public comment on the DEIS. Among

the Governor’s comments are the

following. The revised alternative E

submitted by the cooperating agencies

was not adequately considered by the

NPS. The cooperating agencies were

denied representation on the

identification (sic) team. The choice of

alternative G is not grounded in either

scientific fact or public support. The

elimination of snowmobiles will only

create greater congestion and safety

problems in other popular locations

outside the parks. The loss of the

personal freedom to ride snowmobiles

into the parks is an irreversible and

irretrievable commitment of resources.

The economic analysis presented in the

DEIS is flawed because the NPS failed

to recognize the ‘‘Law of Dimensioning

Returns’’ (sic) (that the revenue

generated in the winter allows local

businesses to stay open, covers the cost

of operations and keeps the community

alive.) None of the alternatives

presented in the FEIS are acceptable to

the State of Idaho. The State of Idaho

strongly supports revised alternative E.

The Honorable Colin B. Simpson,

Wyoming State Legislature states that by

eliminating the preferred access for 60%

of current visitors, NPS is clearly acting

in the biased interest of a minority of its

clients. He indicates the ban is

unreasonable and unsubstantiated, and

agrees with the letter from Park County

Commissioners (WY). Among other

statements in the letter are: adaptive

management provisions could deny

access to the park without due

consideration of benefits and

enjoyment; negative economic impact

on gateway communities; and the FEIS

is flawed by not addressing economic

feasibility of snowcoaches.

Governor Marc Racicot of Montana

would like thorough consideration of

the Montana Preferred Alternative that

was submitted during the comment

period on the DEIS. Governor Racicot

was not satisfied with the NPS response

to Montana’s alternative that was

published in the FEIS. In addition, the

Governor expresses the following: the

lack of effort to reach a broader

consensus (by NPS); request for a

complete evaluation of the Montana

alternative to be conducted and

provided to them; request that the NPS

include flexibility in Record of Decision

regarding cleaner and quieter

snowmobile technology; and request

that the NPS include flexibility with

regard to snowcoach only travel to plan

for the possibility that the proposal will

not work.

Governor Jim Geringer of Wyoming is

extremely disappointed in the NPS’s

failure to fully comply with the

procedures outlined in the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). He

states the FEIS contains many

information gaps, which are the result of

an unrealistic timeframe and a flawed

NEPA process. Wyoming does not

support alternative G and indicates that

the analysis presented in the FEIS does

not support that alternative as a final

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80953

decision. Other concerns noted include:

the state was not adequately consulted

and its information was ignored; cleaner

quieter snowmobiles have an

appropriate role to play in the parks;

NPS has failed to conduct a feasibility

study of a mass transportation system to

service all entrances; and the Record of

Decision should include some type of

escape clause or back-up plan to

guarantee public access in the event

snowcoaches fail to provide reliable

service from all entrances. The Governor

indicates support for adaptive

management including the utilization of

cleaner and quieter snow machines in

the parks, as they are developed and

notes there are currently no emission or

sound standards for snowcoaches. He

states that NPS will continue to use

snowmobiles, and only when the NPS

adopts coach only travel will it be fair

to impose it on others.

Local Government Agencies

Comments were received from

commissioners of: Park and Gallatin

Counties, Montana; Park, Fremont and

Teton Counties, Wyoming; and Teton

and Fremont Counties, Idaho. A

comment was also submitted by the

Teton County (WY) Historic

Preservation Board. Five counties were

cooperating agencies in the effort.

The counties’ general responses to the

FEIS preferred alternative are: 

• Park County Commissioners,

Montana, express their total

dissatisfaction with the FEIS. The

timeline was unacceptable and the NPS

has failed to comply with NEPA and its

procedural requirements.

• Fremont County, Wyoming states

that ‘‘the winter use plan you are

planning to implement is unjust, and

based on politics and emotions rather

than science.’’

• Park County, Wyoming implores

NPS to change its decision from the

preferred alternative in the FEIS.

• Teton County Board of

Commissioners, Wyoming, believes the

selected preferred alternative did not

receive adequate analysis and continues

to be disappointed in how the NEPA

process was used in the development of

the winter use plans. Teton County

initiated the ‘‘Clean Snowmobile

Challenge’’, whose results indicate there

are feasible ways to create a clean, quiet

machine.

• Teton County Commissioners,

Idaho, cannot support the preferred

alternative G, stating the only

alternative they can support is A, no

action. They note agreement with

Fremont County ID in declaring that the

Reclamation Road is an RS2477

highway and is under local jurisdiction.

• Fremont County Board of

Supervisors, Idaho, state: ‘‘Our greatest

concerns come from the unknown

outcomes as a result of the FEIS.

Snowcoaches are the answer to all

questions, according to alternative G,

yet there is no plan for having clean and

quiet, or adequate numbers, of said

vehicles in place in the proposed 3

years.’’

• Gallatin County Commission,

Montana, states: ‘‘Generally we do not

find that the analysis and information

that you use supports the preferred

alternative. We base our concerns on

inconsistencies between your statement

of desired conditions, the data you

provide, the criteria developed by the

park service and a departure from the

criteria developed at Idaho Falls in

October 1998.’’ Much of the letter

quotes liberally from the Draft EIS to

support their comments.

• Teton County Historic Preservation

Board, Wyoming, indicates the board’s

consensus is supportive of preferred

alternative G.

Common themes in all letters from the

counties include the following:

• The preferred alternative has no

basis in scientific fact. Instead of

resolving issues that forced the

development of the EIS, the NPS has

opened the door to further litigation.

• Alternative G still provides for the

administrative use of snowmobiles by

employees living in the interior of

Yellowstone. This is a glaring

contradiction.

• The NPS made changes to the

schedule without consultation or the

consent of the cooperating agencies.

• The counties have repeatedly

documented how delays in providing

information and modeling data have

precluded the counties from fulfilling

their obligations.

• NPS reversed its decision to allow

the cooperating agencies to participate

on the FEIS planning team.

• The alternatives workshop in which

the counties participated did not

provide them with the opportunity to

provide meaningful input.

• The FEIS ignores the utility of

setting an overall carrying capacity for

visitors.

• The FEIS ignores the utility of

setting an overall carrying capacity for

wildlife.

• The cooperating agencies do not

support the incorporation of individual

elements of the revised alternative E

into the FEIS. The revised alternative E

as submitted by the counties was not

intended to be dissected and is only

effective if incorporated as a whole.

• Leave the door open to all new

technological advances for snowmobiles

and allow them in the parks.

• The NPS has chosen to disregard

and misconstrue the input the

recommendations of the cooperating

agencies.

• YNP was set aside as a preserve for

recreational enjoyment and use, and

should be continued to be managed

with this intent.

• The economic impacts of

eliminating snowmobiles will be

devastating.

• Over regulation by the federal

government has been the demise of

many industries.

• NPS does not discuss or

acknowledge the existence of current

snowmobile technology that would help

solve the problem.

• The counties strongly disagree with

the characterization of how the

alternatives were formulated; banning

snowmobiles goes far beyond what was

agreed to.

• Alternative G eliminates conflicts,

but at the expense of an entire user

group. It appears the resources could be

protected and conflicts minimized

while accommodating all user groups.

• There is much doubt about the

feasibility of going to snowcoaches only,

and how this affects other users and

commercial operators. A feasibility

analysis should have been done.

• The majority of winter visitors have

told you that your preferred alternative

is the one they prefer the least.

• We challenge NPS to demonstrate

how they’ve been cooperative and how

cooperation is consistent with the

preferred alternative.

Environmental Groups

Comments were received from groups

or from individuals identifying

themselves as speaking in behalf of a

group. Comments were received from

the following groups.

• Jefferson County Environmental

Network, Lakemills, Wisconsin

• Predator Conservation Alliance,

Bozeman, Montana

• Blue Water Network, San Francisco,

California

• American Lands Alliance,

Washington D.C.

• Wildlands Center for Preventing

Roads, Boulder, Colorado

• Aspen Wilderness Workshop,

Aspen, Colorado

• Native Forest Network, Bozeman,

Montana

• Wyoming Chapter of the Sierra

Club, Jackson, Wyoming

• Greater Yellowstone Coalition,

Bozeman, Montana

• Schubert and Associates, Glendale,

Arizona

80954 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

• The Ecology Center, Inc., Missoula,

Montana

Comments from these groups fall into

several categories. Some groups express

support for Alternative G. Some groups

give qualified support to the alternative.

Others express support for eliminating

snowmobiles, but also see the need to

eliminate any groomed trails and

motorized oversnow use in the parks.

Most groups that support Alternative

G indicate that snowmobiles should be

removed from the parks sooner than 3

years if at all possible. They state that

there is broad public support for

eliminating snowmobiles in parks, and

are optimistic about elements in the

business community that welcome

snowcoach transport. Other related

comments are:

• Snowmobilers have been given too

much time to ‘‘develop their rights.’’

• There is no right to engage in a

noncomforming use.

• NPS should better lay out its plan

for transition to snowcoach only.

• Snowmobiles should be removed at

the soonest time possible. Three year

‘‘phase-in’’ is unacceptable due to

continuing impacts of noise, wildlife

harassment, air pollution, and visitor

disruption.

• Continued snowmobile use needs to

be brought into compliance with laws.

• Snowmobile ban in the parks will

not affect the snowmobile industry.

• Community business leaders

recognize there could be benefits of a

snowmobile ban.

• There are many places outside the

parks that provide snowmobiling

opportunities.

• There is broad public support for

eliminating snowmobiles from parks.

• Sen. Thomas’ solution of separating

snowmobilers and skiers is inadequate

because it doesn’t address

environmental impacts or noise.

• Snowmobilers disregard

regulations, disrupting the integrity of

wilderness and wildlife habitat.

• Changes will decrease noise,

polluted air stresses to wildlife, and

offer visitors a quality experience.

• Any trail grooming should still be

done without conflicts with important

wildlife habitat.

• The decision should also close

YNP’s east entrance and eliminate the

use of military ordinance.

• Interpretation, information and

education should be emphasized in

winter management.

• NPS risks violation of statutes,

regulations and executive orders. The

ROD should express the role of

monitoring and that violations would be

cause to halt offending uses.

• Implementation of a snowcoach

system represents benefits that far

exceed those raised in the FEIS.

• NPS can be a catalyst for innovation

in snowcoach technology.

• Snowcoach transport should be

attractive for visitors and fit the unique

winter setting of the parks. NPS should

determine the best design for this

purpose and include current

manufacturers, purchasers and clientele

served by existing snowcoaches.

• A transition task force should be

convened—composed of NPS, affected

businesses and concessioners, local

officials and environmental groups.

• NPS should initiate education and

outreach to assist in the marketing of

new winter recreation opportunities, to

the benefit of gateway economies.

• NPS should investigate programs

and funding strategies to facilitate the

creation of a snowcoach mass-transit

system, and affected local businesses

should be given initial preference in the

new system.

Those who express qualified support

state that the preferred alternative is an

improvement over current management.

They indicate:

• Pleased that the plan replaces

snowmobile use with snowcoaches.

• Snowmobiles affect air, water,

sound, visitor experience, wildlife, and

bison movement.

• Snowcoach use would continue to

facilitate bison leaving the park in the

winter. Winter use should only be

allowed to the extent that it doesn’t

have this impact.

• Would prefer alternative F in the

DEIS, along with closure of YNP’s east

entrance.

Those who do not support the

preferred alternative also generally

express the idea that the ‘‘decision’’ is

probably the only legal recourse for NPS

because of its mandate. They note that,

while the plans represent an

improvement over current management,

concerns remain. Replacing

snowmobiles with snowcoaches also

should not be permitted. They indicate: 

• The parks wildlife and ecosystem

will continue to suffer from groomed

routes for snowcoaches.

• Continued snowmobile use has

unacceptable impacts and they should

be removed immediately.

• NPS has no legal mandate to

provide motorized access.

• The Biological Assessment fails to

consider the impacts of road grooming

on federally listed species.

• The FEIS is deficient.

• A complete ban on groomed routes

and termination of all oversnow

motorized use should have been

considered in the EIS (a ‘‘true no-action

alternative).

• There are no regulations permitting

road grooming or snowcoach operation.

• FEIS failed to properly analyze the

adverse impact of road grooming on

bison.

• NPS failed to properly consider and

respond to several issues raised in

comments on the DEIS.

• The FEIS range of alternatives is

inadequate, based on the settlement

agreement as mandated by the judge.

• Many of the analysis points raised

in the FEIS actually affirm the

contentions in the lawsuit.

• Reserves the right to participate in

further litigation.

Business Community, Including Park

Concessioners

Comments were received from groups

or from individuals identifying

themselves as speaking in behalf of a

group. Comments were received from

the following groups. 

• Riverton Community Development

Association, Riverton, Wyoming.

• Pahaska Tepee Resort, Cody,

Wyoming.

• International Leisure Hosts, Ltd.,

dba Flagg Ranch Resort, Tempe,

Arizona.

• Cody Chamber of Commerce, Cody,

Wyoming.

• Jackson Hole Chamber of

Commerce, Jackson, Wyoming.

• West, South and East Gate

Operators, YNP, West Yellowstone,

Flagg Ranch, Pahaska Tepee.

• Mattracks Inc., Karlstad, Minnesota.

• Mr. David McCray, Two Top

Snowmobile Rental, West Yellowstone,

Montana.

• Mr. F.W. Howell, Yellowstone

Arctic Yamaha, West Yellowstone,

Montana.

• Mr. Pat Povah, Hamilton Stores,

Yellowstone, Wyoming.

• Mr. Randy Roberson, Yellowstone

Vacations, West Yellowstone, Montana.

Comments from most groups

expressed firm opposition to alternative

G. Some continue to express strong

support for revised alternative E, and

believe as stated in previous comments

that E would meet the purpose and need

for action. Statements from this body of

comment include: 

• Closing YNP to public

snowmobiling will shift use to other

public lands, and result in impacts on

them.

• Alternative E is acceptable if the

advisory groups are not packed with

anti-multiple use advocates.

• Actions of the federal government

to eliminate access to most of the area

in the county destroys our means of

making a living.

• Object to portions of the plan that

limit or eliminate access or types of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80955

access to the parks. This includes

snowcoach only access, adaptive

management, NPS managed

snowcoaches, controlled stops in the

parks, and limited to no access at the

east entrance of YNP.

• Object to portions of the plan that

have a negative economic impact on

gateway communities—eliminating

snowmobiles takes away the preferred

mode of travel for 60% of YNPs historic

visitors.

• Object to portions of the plan that

allow administrative snowmobile use,

that ignores safety concerns relative to

snowcoaches, ignores inconvenience of

snowcoaches, ignores other technical

difficulties with implementing the

alternative.

• ‘‘Snowcoaches only’’ is not

financially feasible for a number of

reasons.

• The FEIS fails to adequately analyze

the effects of increased snow coach

operations on air quality, wildlife, the

NPS budget, visitor demographics and

the economy.

• If numbers are a concern, we

believe that all alternatives have a

provision for establishing carrying

capacities.

• Concerned that the interim use

limits, if implemented this year, would

prohibit fulfilling existing reservations.

• Because of the greater mileage most

people would come to West

Yellowstone, causing even greater

congestion there.

• Snowcoach travel is too slow and

too uncomfortable.

• Increasing snowcoaches will cause

greater safety hazards. More people

would be hurt in a single accident.

• Snowcoaches are too expensive, 20

snowcoaches would cost 1,400,000 a

year and would sit idle for 9 months.

• Cleaner and quieter snowmobiles

are available for purchase.

• The implementation of alternative

G will result in devastating economic

effects.

• From the east gate the only

desirable destination would be Canyon

• Mechanical breakdowns

(snowcoaches) would keep visitors

waiting in the cold until help arrives.

• The increased speed and number of

snowcoaches would increase safety

hazards.

• The preferred alternative and the

FEIS are biased against snowmobiles.

• In order to accommodate current

use levels there would be lines of

snowcoaches at the entrance gates.

• Snowcoaches have a 10%

breakdown rate—who would retrieve

them?

• The parking and storage

requirements for the snowcoaches

would be space and cost prohibitive.

• If snowmobiles must be banned,

plow the road and use buses instead.

The ‘‘West, South and East Gate

Operators’’, YNP, West Yellowstone,

Flagg Ranch, Pahaska Tepee corporately

submitted a letter, stating that

Alternative G will deny rather than

provide access to the visiting public.

The express the right of the public to

enjoy the park is of paramount

importance, second only to protecting

the park for the future. Other statements

include: 

• Enjoyment of snowcoach travel

vastly diminishes after 90 miles. The

alternative eliminates enjoyment of

travel to a number of popular places in

the park.

• Flagg Ranch stipulates that the

alternative would eliminate access from

the south. If the road to Flagg Ranch is

not plowed, the ranch will not open in

the winter and it will not be a

destination.

• From Pahaska, the only possible

destination within the 90 mile

enjoyment level would be the Grand

Canyon of the Yellowstone. Also

snowcoaches over Sylvan are not

advisable due to safety concerns.

• Other objections to snowcoaches

only are: Insufficient speed, safety,

inadequate technology, capital

investment necessary, mode of travel is

not cheaper (than snowmobiles), the

public prefers snowmobiles, and it

would be devastating to the economy.

• The burden is on NPS to conduct a

feasibility study of the alternative.

• Flagg Ranch cannot be a destination

resort without a plowed road to it. The

contract requires the plowed road. NPS

assured Flagg Ranch that its contract

would be honored.

• Interim snowmobile limits will

limit the ranch’s ability to operate. This

is also a breach of contract.

• Elimination of snowmobiles is a

breach of the contract, which doesn’t

expire until 2009.

• Not plowing the road from Colter

Bay to Flagg Ranch would make all of

Yellowstone inaccessible to those who

have traditionally entered from the

south entrance.

Mattracks Inc., Karlstad, Minnesota, is

the only respondent in this group to

support the selection of alternative G as

the preferred alternative and offers the

following implementation suggestions: 

• Suggests a passenger capacity of 6

to 15. A smaller vehicle does not

achieve mass transit goals and larger

vehicles may cause damage to resources.

• The NPS should implement EPA

emission standards for snowcoaches.

• The NPS should require the use of

rubber tracked vehicles instead of metal

or cleated tracks to reduce the sound

levels of snowcoaches. These vehicles

have a less aggressive track and may

also run of pavement without causing

damage.

• Snowcoaches should be of a single

inclusive enclosure (no trailers with

passengers).

Snowmobile or Snowcoach Industry,

Advocates

Comments were received from: 

• Birch, Horton, Bittner and Cherot

and William P. Horn, Attorneys for the

International Snowmobile

Manufacturers Association.

• Mr. Virgil Koehler, American

Council of Snowmobiles.

• Utah Snowmobile Association, Salt

Lake City, Utah.

• Idaho State Snowmobile

Association, Boise, Idaho.

• Ms. Adena Cook, Public Lands

Director, Blue Ribbon Coalition, Idaho

Falls, Idaho.

• Ms. Beth Walsh, Moran, Wyoming.

• Mr. Jim Gerber, St. Anthony, Idaho.

All comments in this group are

opposed to the selection of alternative

G. Some support the implementation of

a revised alternative E but indicate that

since this alternative was not included

in the FEIS their support is given to

alternative A, the no action alternative.

Reasons for opposition to the

implementation of alternative G in the

parks for the following reasons: 

• A 21 day review period is

unacceptable for such a dramatic change

in alternative preference.

• The expertise of a significant cross

section of professionals (cooperating

agencies) has been totally ignored.

• The snowmobile industry has made

many improvements in technology since

1970.

• The benefit of snowcoach travel in

the parks is pure conjecture.

• The misuse and abuse of the NEPA

process in preparation of this FEIS is

appalling.

• The FEIS was crafted to support a

decision made in Washington D.C.

requiring significant shifts from the

DEIS alternatives.

• The FEIS fails to utilize

constructive It would drastically reduce

winter recreation use and enjoyment in

derogation of the acts creating

Yellowstone National Park and the

national park system.

• Alternative G was concocted after

the fact and the NPS has not allowed the

public sufficient time to explore the

plan and register informed comments.

• Alternative G would violate existing

concessions contracts—(Flagg Ranch in

particular).

• Alternative G would have

devastating effects on the economies

local communities.

80956 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

• Snowmobiles produced after 1976

emit no more than 73 dB(A) at 15 MPH

when tested using SAE J1161.

• Several studies are cited that

indicate that deer are more likely to

move away from ski trails than

snowmobile trails and that they are

unaffected by snowmobile traffic.

• A University of Wisconsin study

found that snowmobile traffic has no

effect on the grain yield of winter wheat.

• Six of the seven alternatives offered

in the FEIS provide almost no range of

proposals that could possibly be

considered as conscientious multiple

use management of public lands.

• The change in the preferred

alternative from ‘‘B’’ to ‘‘G’’ without

allowing the public to comment proves

that land managers are only listening to

the well-funded voices of the minority

extreme advocacy groups.

• Comments submitted by ISSA, and

the state of Wyoming.

• The FEIS exaggerates the

environmental effects of snowmobiles.

• The economic analysis presented in

the FEIS is superficial and inadequate.

• The FEIS fails to adequately define

what would constitute acceptable

impacts from snowmobiles.

• Revised alternative E was not

seriously considered.

• The FEIS version of the ‘‘Existing

Condition’’ and ‘‘Desired Condition’’

was significantly altered from the

version in the DEIS.

• Alternative G is totally new and has

not been validated by the public.

• The NPS has manipulated visitor

use numbers to serve its own purposes.

• The FEIS describes natural

soundscapes as a resource not a value.

• The Duffield study is pure

conjecture, the FEIS should have

incorporated the more factual State of

Wyoming study.

• Additional information in the FEIS

on social values, soundscapes and

emissions need validation before any

conclusions can be reached.

• The NPS was arbitrary and

capricious in its decision to ban

snowmobiles and require snowcoaches

instead.

• The analysis of water quality for

alternatives A through F states that there

is no evidence of measurable changes in

water quality from snowmobile

emissions yet in alternative G the FEIS

concludes that alternative G addresses

the issue of water quality better than

other alternatives.

• Snowcoaches will result in a loss of

personal freedom and a poor experience

in the parks.

• Snowcoaches will be cost

prohibitive for many.

• Constructing new winter facilities

at Colter Bay makes no sense because

the facilities at Flagg Ranch are

currently under utilized.

• Construction new winter facilities

at Colter Bay would negatively effect

lynx habitat.

• If the park service does not plow

the road from Colter to Flagg it will

result in longer EMS response times.

[FR Doc. 00–30998 Filed 12–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

Notice of Inventory Completion for

Native American Human Remains and

Associated Funerary Objects from

Connecticut in the Possession of the

Peabody Museum of Natural History,

Yale University, New Haven, CT

AGENCY: National Park Service

ACTION: Notice.

Notice is hereby given in accordance

with provisions of the Native American

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

(NAGPRA), 43 CFR 10.9, of the

completion of an inventory of human

remains and associated funerary objects

in the possession of the Peabody

Museum of Natural History, Yale

University, New Haven, CT.

This notice is published as part of the

National Park Service’s administrative

responsibilities under NAGPRA, 43 CFR

10.2 (c). The determinations within this

notice are the sole responsibility of the

museum, institution, or Federal agency

that has control of these Native

American human remains and

associated funerary objects. The

National Park Service is not responsible

for the determinations within this

notice.

A detailed assessment of the human

remains and associated funerary objects

was made by Peabody Museum of

Natural History professional staff in

consultation with representatives of the

Mashantucket Pequot Tribe.

In 1873, human remains representing

one individual were donated to the

Peabody Museum of Natural History by

J. D. Fish. The remains were recovered

near Mystic, CT. No known individual

was identified. No associated funerary

objects are present.

Based on the documentary evidence,

examination of the human remains, and

consultation with representatives of the

Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, this

individual is identified as Native

American. The remains appear to be

prehistoric or protohistoric in age.

Cultural affiliation has been determined

on the basis of geographic origin of the

remains, physical characteristics that

identify them as Native American,

published accounts of the traditional

territory of the Mashantucket Pequot

Tribe, and historical information

provided by the Mashantucket Pequot

Tribe. Historical documents indicate

that the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe has

occupied the area where the remains

were recovered since the Late Woodland

period, circa A.D. 1000.

In 1874, human remains representing

three individuals were donated to the

Peabody Museum of Natural History by

Mrs. E. O. Dunning. The remains were

recovered near Mystic, CT. No known

individuals were identified. The one

associated funerary object is a metal

spoon.

Based on the documentary evidence,

examination of the human remains, and

consultation with representatives of the

Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, these

individuals are identified as Native

American. The remains and the spoon

probably date to the period of EuroAmerican contact. Cultural affiliation

has been determined on the basis of

geographic origin of the remains,

physical characteristics that identify

them as Native American, published

accounts of the traditional territory of

the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, and

historical information provided by the

Mashantucket Pequot Tribe. Historical

documents indicate that the

Mashantucket Pequot Tribe has

occupied the area where the remains

were recovered since the Late Woodland

period, circa A.D. 1000.

In 1948, human remains representing

one individual was donated to the

Peabody Museum of Natural History by

Eva Butler. The remains were recovered

near Groton, CT, on the property of the

Spicer Ice and Coal Co. during

excavation for a drain. No known

individual was identified. No associated

funerary objects are present.

Based on the documentary evidence,

examination of the human remains, and

consultation with representatives of the

Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, this

individual is identified as Native

American. The remains appear to be

prehistoric or protohistoric in age.

Cultural affiliation has been determined

on the basis of geographic origin of the

remains, physical characteristics that

identify them as Native American,

published accounts of the traditional

territory of the Mashantucket Pequot

Tribe, and historical information

provided by the Mashantucket Pequot

Tribe. Historical documents indicate

that the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe has

occupied the area where the remains

were recovered since the Late Woodland

period, circa A.D. 1000.