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

Field Station, P.O. Box 911, 1553 South Dated: December 12, 2000. For a period of 90 days from the date Main Street, Tonopah, NV 89049. W. Craig MacKinnon, of publication of this notice, all persons SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The land Assistant Field Manager. who wish to submit comments, has been identified as suitable for [FR Doc. 00–32738 Filed 12–21–00; 8:45 am] suggestions, or objections in connection disposal by the Tonopah Resource BILLING CODE 4310±HC±P with the proposed withdrawal may Management Plan. The land is not present their views in writing to the needed for any resource program and is Nevada State Director of the Bureau of not suitable for management by the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Land Management. Bureau or another Federal department Notice is hereby given that an or agency. An environmental Bureau of Land Management opportunity for a public meeting is assessment which analyzes potential [NV±930±1430±ET; NVN±73931] afforded in connection with the impacts from this action has been proposed withdrawal. All interested prepared and is available for review at Notice of Proposed Withdrawal and persons who desire a public meeting for the address shown above. Opportunity for Public Meeting; the purpose of being heard on the The mineral estate, excepting saleable Nevada proposed withdrawal must submit a minerals, has been determined to have written request to the Nevada State no known value. Therefore, the mineral AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Director within 90 days from the date of estate, excepting saleable minerals, will Interior. publication of this notice. Upon be conveyed simultaneously with the ACTION: Notice. determination by the authorized officer surface estate in accordance with that a public meeting will be held, a SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Section 209(b)(1) of Federal Land Policy notice of the time and place will be Management proposes to withdraw and Management Act of 1976. published in the Federal Register at 277.046 acres of public lands for a Acceptance of the sale offer will least 30 days before the scheduled date period of 20 years to protect the historic constitute application for conveyance of of the meeting. town of Rhyolite. This notice closes the the mineral interests. The sale The application will be processed in lands for up to 2 years from surface proponent will be required to submit a accordance with the regulations set entry and mining while various studies $50.00 non-refundable filing fee for forth in 43 CFR Part 2300. conveyance of the mineral interests with and analyses are made to make a final For a period of 2 years from the date the purchase price for the land. Failure decision. of publication of this notice in the to submit the non-refundable fee for the DATES: Comments and requests for Federal Register, the lands will be mineral estate within the time frame meeting should be received on or before segregated as specified above unless the specified by the authorized officer will March 22, 2001. application is denied or canceled or the result in cancellation of the sale. ADDRESS: Comments and meeting withdrawal is approved prior to that Upon publication of this Notice of requests should be sent to the Nevada date. Other uses which will be Realty Action in the Federal Register, State Director, BLM, 1340 Financial permitted during this segregative period the lands will be segregated from all Blvd., P.O. Box 12000, Reno, Nevada are rights-of-way, leases, and permits. forms of appropriation under the public 89520–0006. Date: December 18, 2000. land laws, including the mining laws, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret L. Jensen, but not the mineral leasing laws or Dennis J. Samuelson, BLM Nevada State Deputy State Director, Natural Resources, disposals pursuant to Sections 203 and Office, 775–861–6532. 209 of FLPMA. The segregation shall Lands, and Planning. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On terminate upon issuance of a patent or [FR Doc. 00–32760 Filed 12–21–00; 8:45 am] December 8, 2000, a petition was other document of conveyance, upon BILLING CODE 4310±HC±P approved allowing the Bureau of Land publication in the Federal Register of a Management to file an application to termination of segregation, or 270 days withdraw the following described from date of this publication, which DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR public lands from settlement, sale, ever occurs first. Patent, if issued, will be subject to the location, or entry under the general land National Park Service following third party rights: Excepting laws, including the mining laws, subject to valid existing rights: Record of Decision; Winter Use Plans and Reserving to the United States: for the Yellowstone and Grand Teton 1. Saleable minerals, Mount Diablo Meridian 2. A right-of-way thereon for ditches National Parks and John D. Rockefeller or canals constructed by the authority of T. 12 S., R. 46 E., Jr., Memorial Parkway the United States. Act of August 30, secs. 9 and 16 (within). 1980 (43 U.S.C. 945). The areas described aggregate 277.046 Responsible Official: Subject to: All valid existing rights. acres in Nye County. For a more Dated: November 22, 2000. For a period of 45 days from the date complete description, you may contact Karen Wade, of publication in the Federal Register, Dennis J. Samuelson at the phone Intermountain Regional Director, National interested parties may submit comments number or address listed above. Park Service. to the Assistant Field Manager, Tonopah The purpose of the proposed Record of Decision Field Station, P.O. Box 911, Tonopah, withdrawal is for the Bureau of Land NV 89049. Any adverse comments will Management to protect the historic town Winter Use Plans for Yellowstone and be evaluated by the State Director, who of Rhyolite, which contains numerous Grand Teton National Parks and the may sustain, vacate or modify this realty cultural resources. The most prominent John D. Rockefeller Jr., Memorial action and issue a final determination. resource is a train depot built in 1906. Parkway In the absence of timely filed objections, The lands will be managed for historic Table of Contents this realty action will become a final and recreation purposes. Rhyolite is determination of the Department of the located about 90 miles northwest of Las The Decision Interior. Vegas near the town of Beatty. Decision

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80909

Actions and Assumptions Common to All common to all 3 units, actions specific permittees and state tourism program Units to Yellowstone, actions specific to resources on a new marketing strategy Actions Specific to Yellowstone National Grand Teton and the Parkway, designed to facilitate winter visitation Park mitigation, and monitoring. The maps by snowcoach. Actions Specific to Grand Teton National • Allow a planning and Park and the Parkway for alternative G and the description of Definitions each management zone provided in the implementation period of 3 (three) FEIS, while not duplicated in this years. Mitigation • Monitoring Record of Decision, are features of this In the winter of 2000–2001, snowmobile and snowplane use will Rationale for the Decision decision. In order to implement portions of this continue under current regulations. This Basis for the Decision decision, the National Park Service is a departure from alternative G. This How Environmental Issues Were change is made because the Considered and Addressed (NPS) will propose to amend its Factors Other Than Environmental regulations at 36 CFR 7.13(l), 7.21(a), implementation of changes in Consequences Considered in Making the and 7.22(g). Although this decision is snowmobile and snowplane use that Decision final for the purposes of this planning require new regulations could not be Findings project, those elements that will go made until the 2000–2001 season is Measures Taken To Avoid Environmental through the rule making process may be nearly over. Waiting until 2001–2002 to Harm modified based on further public set new limits on snowmobile and Public Involvement comments. snowplane use will afford ample public notice of the new limits. Scoping Decision • Summary of Public Scoping Comment In the winter of 2000–2001, actions Major Issues The selected alternative emphasizes that do not require regulations (such as Issues or Concerns Not Addressed in the cleaner, quieter access to the parks increasing ranger patrols to reduce the Plans/EIS using the technologies available today. disturbance of wildlife) will be Federal Register Notices Effective the winter of 2003–2004 and undertaken to reduce the impacts from Distribution of the Draft Environmental thereafter, it will allow oversnow snowmobile use. Impact Statement motorized recreation access via NPS- • In the winters of 2001–2003, Public Meetings/Hearings existing commercial snowcoach Comments on the Draft Environmental managed snowcoach only, with limited Impact Statement exceptions for continued snowmobile operators will be encouraged to increase Public Response to the FEIS access to other public and private lands their fleet size, and snowmobile and other new operators will be encouraged Consultation adjacent to or within GTNP. Until then, interim actions will progressively to purchase or lease coaches and reduce Cooperating Agencies reduce the impacts from snowmobile snowmobile numbers. American Indian Tribes • use in the parks. In 2001–2002, daily limits will be State Historic Preservation Offices set on snowmobile and snowplane use U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service This decision addresses the full range Alternatives Considered of issues regarding safety, natural so that daily use levels cannot increase Alternative Development resource impacts, and visitor experience above the average peak day use levels of Scope of Analysis in the FEIS and access. It addresses the issues in a recent years, as shown in table 1, below. • Alternatives way that will make it necessary for local In 2002–2003, daily limits will be Comparison of Alternatives economies to adapt, and for snowmobile set to limit total recreational Environmentally Preferred Alternative users to access the parks using a snowmobile use to approximately 50% Information Contact different mode of transport. of the current average annual use levels at the South and West Entrances of Attachment A—Monitoring and Adaptive Actions and Assumptions Common to YNP. Current snowmobile use levels Management All Units will be maintained from the East and Attachment B—Summary of Public Implementation North Entrances of YNP. See table 1, Comments on the FEIS below. • Unless otherwise noted, the parks • Record of Decision In 2002–2003 for GTNP and the will implement all actions the winter Parkway eliminate snowmobile use on Winter Use Plans for Yellowstone and following the Record of Decision (ROD) the Teton Park Road, all motorized use Grand Teton National Parks and the for the winter use plans and EIS. on Jackson Lake, and all other John D. Rockefeller Jr., Memorial Actions requiring a change in recreational snowmobile use except for Parkway regulations will be implemented once that on the CDST, Grassy Lake Road, the new regulations are effective. The Decision and access routes to adjacent public • If it can be demonstrated lands, with limits shown in table 1, This decision made as a result of the sufficiently for NPS to determine that an below. Winter Use Plans Final Environmental implemented action has affected or • In 2003–2004 and thereafter, all Impact Statement (FEIS) for would substantially affect a concession oversnow motorized visitor travel in the Yellowstone (YNP) and Grand Teton operation prior to the expiration of its parks will be by snowcoach, except for National Parks (GTNP) and the John D. contract, the action will be implemented limited routes in GTNP that will remain Rockefeller Jr., Memorial Parkway (the only through negotiation or when a new open for snowmobile access to adjacent Parkway) will guide winter use contract is awarded. public or private lands and to private management in the three park units. The • NPS will develop a detailed inholdings. decision is to select a modified form of snowcoach implementation plan in alternative G, as described and coordination with gateway Regulation/Enforcement/Administration evaluated in the FEIS, with the changes communities, concessioners and winter • Several actions include possible to that alternative explained here. permittees. road closures depending on the results Elements of the decision are given in • NPS will coordinate with gateway of scientific studies. None of the actions detail below as actions and assumptions communities, concessioners and winter preclude other closures for safety,

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 80910 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices resource protection, or other reasons as necessary, techniques such as • Through the permitting process identified in 36 CFR 1.5 or 2.18. reservations, permits, and differential phase out all oversnow vehicles that do • At present no Environmental fees will be implemented. See zone not meet the best available Protection Agency (EPA) standards exist descriptions, monitoring table, and environmental standards for oversnow for off-road vehicles. If the EPA adopts Appendix H (Recreation Carrying mass transit travel. Currently, the mass standards or measurement methods for Capacity). transit oversnow vehicle that produces vehicle emissions and sound applicable • Continue to implement transition the lowest emissions is the conversion to winter use in the parks, they will be and action plans for accessibility and van mat track.2 Any oversnow mass implemented in accordance with EPA support the philosophy of universal transit system in the parks must be low regulations. access in the parks. The NPS will make emission, quiet, safe, affordable, • Require all new oversnow vehicles reasonable efforts to ensure accessibility accessible, and comply with the purchased by the parks to conform to to buildings, facilities, programs, and requirements of EO 11644. the best environmental standards services. The NPS will develop • Allow mass transit snowcoaches available, and that other vehicles are strategies to ensure that new and only when their sound levels are at or retrofitted whenever possible with new renovated facilities, programs and below 75 decibels as measured on the technologies designed to lower sound services (including those provided by A-weighted scale at 50 feet at full and emission levels. concessioners) are designed, throttle. Continue to work with • Increase the field presence of park constructed, or offered in conformance snowcoach manufacturers and operators rangers during the interim period before with applicable policies, rules, to meet a long-term goal to lower full implementation of snowcoach regulations, and standards (including snowcoach sound levels to 70 decibels access to monitor, anticipate, detect and but not limited to the Architectural or lower. mitigate resource and wildlife impacts Barriers Act of 1968; the Americans • Prohibit late night oversnow travel and to increase visitor safety. with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA): the from about 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. in 2000– Resource Protection Uniform Federal Accessibility 2001, and thereafter from about 9 p.m. Standards of 1984 (UFAS); and the • to 8 a.m., unless specifically authorized. Continue scientific studies and Guidelines for Outdoor Developed • Implement an information program monitoring regarding winter visitor use Areas of 1999). on snow and trail conditions, points of and park resources. Close selected areas • Architectural and Site Access and interest, and available recreational of the park, including sections of roads, Programmatic Access: The NPS will opportunities. Through partnerships, to visitor use if scientific studies evaluate existing buildings and existing establish park visitor contact indicate that human presence or and new programs, activities, and opportunities in gateway communities activities have a detrimental effect on services (including telecommunications and utilize state tourism program wildlife or other park resources that and media) to determine current resources. could not otherwise be mitigated. The accessibility and usability by disabled appropriate level of environmental winter visitors. Action plans to remove Actions Specific to Yellowstone assessment under NEPA will be barriers will be developed. National Park completed for all actions as required by • This decision includes an • In Yellowstone, the NPS will CEQ regulations (40 CFR parts 1500– affirmative commitment to implement continue to allow the plowing of 1508). strategies designed to provide a • Highway 191 and will continue to plow Give a 1-year notice before any reasonable level of affordable access to the road from Mammoth to Tower and closure is implemented unless winter park visitors. Tower to the Northeast Entrance (Cooke • immediate closure is deemed necessary Backcountry nonmotorized use will City) throughout the winter. to avoid impairment of park resources continue to be allowed throughout the • Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone or to protect public safety. parks except where designated and the McMinn Bench bighorn sheep • Sand, or an equally otherwise for resource protection area will continue to be closed to winter environmentally neutral substance, will purposes (shown as Zone 11 or area of use. be used for traction on all plowed designated trail use on alternative map). • Winter garbage storage facilities that winter roads. Before spring opening, • Other means of oversnow travel not are wildlife-proof will be constructed in sand removal operations will continue foreseen in this Record of Decision must the Old Faithful, Grant, Lake, and on all plowed park roads. be specifically approved by the park Canyon areas. • Investigate and implement options superintendent. to reduce the palatability and • In the third year of the interim accessibility to wildlife of the hydraulic snowcoach system would be provided by private period (2002–2003), snowmobiles in concessioners who operate under a permit from the fluid used in snow groomers. YNP must be accompanied by an NPS • NPS. Under the terms of the permit or concessions When snow depth warrants and at permitted guide and travel in groups of contract, the NPS may stipulate, among other items, periodic intervals, routine plowing or no more than 11 (including the guide). the type of services to be offered, cost to the public, grooming operations will include laying and number of visitors that may be served or The superintendent will be authorized transported. The NPS may require that the types of back roadside snowbanks that could be to also require groups and guides in vehicles used meet certain environmental, a barrier to wildlife exiting the road GTNP and the Parkway. accessibility and safety requirements. It is the corridor. • In 2003–2004 and thereafter, permit responsibility of the NPS to monitor all services only NPS-managed mass transit offered under permit to ensure that the public and Visitor Use and Access the parks are being well served. These permits are snowcoaches on designated oversnow • generally offered for competitive bidding in limited NPS will determine visitor use roads, other than for allowable numbers and are granted for a specific number of capacities based on studies that set administrative, emergency or other years. indicators and standards for desired snowmobile access as specified in other 2 Estimates of emissions for conventional vans visitor experiences and resource 1 converted for oversnow travel indicate that the actions in this document. emissions increase once the conversion is made. conditions. The NPS will monitor For this reason adherence to EPA regulations for indicators to maintain the conditions for 1 Note: The term ‘‘NPS managed’’ refers to permit similar wheeled vans is neither appropriate nor each management prescription. If management. In this case the mass transportation required.

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80911

• Continue all existing groomed contracts) and encourage the use of interpretive opportunities that focus on motorized routes (zone 3). Offer snowcoaches. nonmotorized uses (zone 1). snowcoach service on the East Entrance • Limit backcountry nonmotorized Actions Specific to Grand Teton Road if safety goals can be met. use to designated routes to address National Park and the Parkway Management of avalanche danger on the wildlife issues in certain wildlife winter East Entrance Road may mean • In Grand Teton and the Parkway, ranges, or close certain areas to all use. unscheduled closures of the road to all the following roadways will continue to • Winterize facilities at Colter Bay to travel. be plowed: provide a suitable staging area for • Provide nonmotorized • Highway 26/89/187 from the south snowcoach access.6 opportunities (e.g., skiing and boundary of the park to Moran • Effective 2002–2003, discontinue snowshoeing) (zones 8 and 9). Examples • Highway 89/287 from Moran to the motorized use of Jackson Lake’s of existing roads or trails that will be Colter Bay frozen surface (no snowplanes or groomed include Fountain Flats Road • Highway 26/287 from Moran to the snowmobiles). and portions of the East Entrance road. eastern park boundary • Increase interpretive opportunities • Where feasible, set parallel tracks • Teton Park Road from Moose related to the unique aspects of the on one or both sides of the snow roads Junction to Taggart Lake Trailhead, and winter environment by providing to facilitate nonmotorized access. from Jackson Lake Junction to Signal interpretive programs at destination • Increase interpretive opportunities Mountain Lodge; from Highway 89/287 areas and warming huts. Provide guided related to the unique aspects of the along the Pacific Creek road to the park interpretive programs for organized winter environment by providing boundary; from Kelly to the eastern park groups on snowcoaches. Provide interpretive programs at destination boundary; from Gros Ventre Junction to interpretive ski and snowshoe tours and areas and warming huts. Provide guided Kelly to Shadow Mountain staging area; programs at locations such as Moose, interpretive programs for organized and the road to the eastern park Colter Bay, and Flagg Ranch visitor groups on snowcoaches. Provide boundary at Ditch Creek. services. interpretive ski and snowshoe tours and • Current winter closures will remain • Phase in administrative programs such as near Tower, Canyon, in effect on the Snake River floodplain, snowmobile types that meet the best Mammoth, Old Faithful, West Thumb, the Buffalo Fork River floodplain, the available emission and sound limits. Madison, and West Entrance. Uhl Hill area, Willow Flats, Kelly Hill, Administrative use of snowmobiles in • Increase the size and number of and Static Peak. Grand Teton is limited to law warming huts and other day use • Reasonable and direct access to enforcement, utility and maintenance facilities. Place warming huts and adjacent public and private lands, or to access, permitted scientific studies, restrooms at popular ski trailheads (for privately owned lands within the park search and rescue or other use as example Tower), as support for with permitted or historical motorized approved by the superintendent.7 motorized staging areas (for example access, will continue via paved and Norris), and where the existing facility plowed routes or via oversnow routes Definitions size is currently inadequate to handle to from GTNP (used by snowmobiles).4 • Oversnow motor vehicles: self- the dual function of warming hut and • Provide opportunities for oversnow propelled vehicles intended for travel interpretive program staging area (for motorized trail use (zone 3) by on snow, driven by a track or tracks in example, Canyon). snowcoaches only on the unplowed, contact with the snow that may be • Restrict nonmotorized uses in groomed surface of the highway from steered by skis or tracks in contact with certain wildlife winter ranges and Colter Bay to Flagg Ranch, in the future the snow. This term includes both thermal areas to travel on designated upon the meeting of certain conditions, snowmobiles and snowcoaches. routes or trails (zones 8 and 9). and, effective 2003–2004 and thereafter, • Snowmobiles: self-propelled • Implement the winter use season north into Yellowstone, and on the vehicles intended for travel on snow, during the period from late November to Grassy Lake Road.5 having a curb weight of not more than mid-March. • Provide opportunities for • 1,000 pounds (450kg), driven by a track Reduce administrative nonmotorized ungroomed winter trail or tracks in contact with the snow, 3 snowmobile use from the 106 currently use (zone 9): which may be steered by a ski or skis used and supplement with • On the Teton Park Road from in contact with the snow. administrative snowcoaches, subject to Taggert Lake Trailhead to Signal • Snowplanes: self-propelled vehicles available funding. When practicable, Mountain. intended for oversnow travel, having a replace administrative snowmobiles • On Antelope Flats. weight of not more than 1,000 pounds with a type that meets the best available • Near Colter Bay and Two Ocean (450kg) mounted on skis in contact with emission and sound limits. Lake. • the snow, and driven by a pusher- Continue allowing personal non- • On the unplowed portion of the propeller. recreation use of snowmobiles by Moose-Wilson road. • Snowcoaches: self-propelled, mass employees and their families living in • Continue destination and support transit vehicles intended for travel on the interior of Yellowstone; however, facilities at Moose, Triangle X, Colter snow, having a curb weight of over subject to available funding, provide Bay, and Flagg Ranch, and add warming 1,000 pounds (450kg), driven by a track administrative snowcoaches for their hut facilities along the Teton Park Road or tracks and steered by skis or tracks, use and encourage them to replace their to provide visitor services and having a capacity of at least 8 current snowmobiles with cleaner and passengers. quieter machines. 4 16 U.S.C. 406d–1, et seq. • The phrase gateway communities • Allow limited use of administrative 5 Termination of plowing from Colter Bay to Flagg refers to the towns of Jackson and Cody, snowmobiles by concessioners. Require Ranch is contingent upon the winterization of cleaner and quieter technologies as they facilities at Colter Bay and expiration and reissuance of a concession contract associated with 6 This provision is contingent upon the are developed (through permit and Flagg Ranch. The present contract expires in 2009. termination of plowing from Colter Bay to Flagg See Actions and Assumptions Common to All Ranch. 3 EO 11644, sections (3) and (4). Units, second bullet under Implementation. 7 EO 11644, sections (3) and (4).

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 80912 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

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

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80913

TABLE 1.ÐINTERIM CAPS ON SNOWMOBILES IN YELLOWSTONE (YNP), ROCKEFELLER PARKWAY (JDRMP) AND GRAND TETON (GTNP)

Historic average 2001±2002 2002±2003 Road segments daily use Peak day limits Daily limits

YNP North Entrance ...... 41 60 60 YNP West Entrance ...... 555 1030 278 YNP East Entrance ...... 37 10065 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 management are also presented in for a range of alternative plans that ensure that use does not exceed the Attachment A. would govern winter use. I have historic averages for use on the busiest Monitoring programs will be considered how each alternative peak days and the level of impact coordinated among the parks. The responds to the purpose and need for associated with it. Use fluctuates daily, programs will function and be action, to improve existing conditions in increasing especially during certain coordinated through the planning staffs the parks and move them toward a holiday periods. Use caps should act to of the parks. The development of annual desired condition that is implicit in NPS allow such fluctuations, since this is the plans and reports will be coordinated mandates. In doing so, I considered the nature of business and visitation. This is through the planning units, and the impacts for each alternative program why the peak use day represents a cap, planning units will be responsible for and weighed them against affirmative to allow the business pattern to delivering those products. Actual direction for protecting park resources continue. It is not the intent of this cap monitoring responsibilities for park and values, and their enjoyment by to allow peak use numbers to occur personnel will be assigned through future generations, from adverse every day. If this were to occur then annual plans. impacts or impairment. I also levels would be exceeded overall, and Monitoring programs will be considered the degree to which each additional impacts would be incurred. It conducted on a sampling basis for the alternative would enhance the condition is the intent of this cap to replicate the purpose of effective use of funds and of resources or values and their pattern and amount of use that has been personnel. It is expected that initial enjoyment. Other considerations established over an average of seven monitoring will be intensive, both in include socioeconomic impacts, effects years. geographic and temporal extent, so that on lands adjacent to the three parks, the correlations can be made and results can plans or desires articulated by local Monitoring be extrapolated. It is also expected that communities and nonfederal monitoring over time will become less governments, and the full body of In order to assess the long-term effects intensive and arrive at a low intensity, public comments on the draft EIS. All of management actions on park maintenance level. Sampling schedules these considerations are presented resources and values resource can vary from year to year, focusing on below as they contribute to the decision. inventory, monitoring and adaptive different areas within the park units. The fundamental basis for the management are incorporated into this U.S. EPA expressed concerns about decision is the direction provided in decision. The key resources and values the actions that would be taken if NPS laws, regulations, executive orders and potentially impacted by winter does not have sufficient funds to policies (mandates) that relate to human recreation use in the three park units are monitor winter use in accordance with uses of the parks and their effect on park air quality, wildlife, sound,8 water the adaptive management part of this resources and values. This basis is resources, safety, and visitor experience. decision. Actions affecting park values overlain by the analysis of effects on Attachment A outlines specific for which there are no defined park resources and values disclosed in indicators for monitoring these standards, such as odor, sound or visitor the FEIS. Then, conclusions or findings resources and values. The indicators satisfaction, are subject to an adaptive are made about the alternatives and will be monitored to ensure protection management approach. If continuing their effects in relation to the key of natural resources and park values and problems are indicated relative to such mandates regarding adverse impacts and evaluate management success. The impacts, but there are not sufficient impairment. Other considerations are selected alternative also includes funds for focused monitoring and incorporated into the discussion. adaptive management provisions. It evaluation of those problems, Basis for the Decision provides for systematic feedback to park emergency management actions will be management and allows for adjustment implemented to eliminate the impact Law of activities to mitigate unplanned or pending the attainment of funds. The fundamental purpose of the undesirable outcomes. Procedures, national park system established by the indicators, standards and potential Rationale for the Decision Organic Act and reaffirmed by the management actions for adaptive This section provides the reasons for General Authorities Act, as amended, selecting FEIS alternative G as the begins with a mandate to conserve park 8 NPS Director’s Order #47 provides guidance for decision and the basis for winter use resources and values. This mandate is inventory and monitoring procedures necessary to preserve the natural soundscape. NPS–77 provides plans in the three park units. In arriving independent of the separate prohibition guidance for monitoring and inventory of other at this decision, I have considered the on impairment and applies all the time, natural resources elements. detailed analysis of effects in the FEIS with respect to all park resources and

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 80914 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices values, even when there is no risk that they shall from time to time amend or extent that it affects a resource or value any park resources or values may be rescind designations, or take other whose conservation is: impaired. NPS managers must always actions to eliminate adverse impacts.11 • Necessary to fulfill specific seek ways to avoid, or to minimize to If the agency determines that the use of purposes identified in the establishing the greatest degree practicable, adverse off-road vehicles (including legislation; impacts on park resources and values. snowmobiles) will cause or is causing • Key to the cultural or natural The laws give the NPS the discretion to considerable adverse effects on the soil, integrity of the park or opportunities to allow some impacts to park resources vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, enjoy the park; or • and values when appropriate and such areas shall immediately be closed Identified as a goal in relevant NPS necessary to fulfill the purposes of a to that use.12 planning documents. park as long as that impact does not The 1988 NPS Management Policies constitute impairment. Interpretation of Policy state that the National Park Service will The Organic Act mandate includes Impairment is an impact that, in the seek to perpetuate the best possible air providing for the enjoyment of park professional judgment of the responsible quality in parks because clean air is resources and values by the people of NPS manager, would harm the integrity critical to visitor enjoyment, human the United States. The mandate applies of park resources or values, including health, scenic vistas, and the not just to the people who visit the the opportunities that otherwise would preservation of natural systems and parks—but to all the people—including be present for the enjoyment of those cultural resources. The policies also those who derive inspiration and resources or values. Impairment may recognize that many natural resources, knowledge from afar. NPS policies occur from visitor use or park including water and wildlife, are acknowledge that providing management activities.13 sensitive to air pollution. Additionally, NPS must err on the side of protecting opportunities for public enjoyment is a NPS Director’s Order # 55 define the air quality and related values if there is fundamental part of the NPS mission. terms ‘‘resources and values’’ as the doubt as to the impacts on park While the policies permit recreation and park’s scenery, natural and historic resources of existing or potential air other activities, including NPS objects, and wildlife, including, to the pollution.15 NPS also has recognized management activities, they may be extent present in the park: The that it must preserve the natural quiet allowed only when they will not cause ecological, biological and physical and the natural sounds associated with an impairment or derogation of a park’s processes that created the park and that the physical and biological resources of resources, values or purposes. continue to act upon it; scenic features; the parks. Managers must monitor Recognizing that the enjoyment of the natural visibility (both in daytime and at sounds and take actions to prevent or national parks by future generations can night); natural landscapes; natural minimize unnatural sounds that be assured only if the quality of park soundscapes 14 and smells; water and air adversely affect park resources or values resources and values is left unimpaired, resources; soil; geological resources; Congress has provided that when there and visitors’ enjoyment of them. paleontological resources; archeological The 1988 NPS management policies 16 is a conflict between conserving resources; cultural landscapes; resources and values and providing for also recognize that the NPS Organic Act ethnographic resources; historic and directs the agency to provide for the enjoyment of them, conservation is to be prehistoric sites, structures, and objects; the primary concern.9 public enjoyment of parks while leaving museum collections; and native plants resources unimpaired for future Regulation and animals. The park’s resources and generations. The policies mandate that values also include the opportunity for Snowmobiling (specifically) may be the use of parks will be resource-based enjoyment of these resources, to the and nonconsumptive of resources. To allowed only where it is consistent with extent that can be done without the park’s natural, cultural, scenic and the extent practicable, the NPS will impairing them. The term also includes encourage people to come to the parks aesthetic values, safety considerations, the park’s role in contributing to the park management objectives, and will and to pursue inspirational, national dignity, the high public value educational, and recreational activities not disturb wildlife or damage park and integrity, and the superlative resources.10 related to the resources found in the environmental quality of the national parks. NPS must manage visitor use Executive Orders park system, and the benefit and and, as necessary, regulate the amount Areas and trails for off road vehicle inspiration provided to the American and kind, and the time and place, of use shall be located in areas of the people by the national park and any visitor activities. national park system only if the agency additional specific purposes for which a NPS must encourage recreational head determines that off road vehicle park was established. An impact is more activities that are consistent with use in such locations will not adversely likely to constitute an impairment to the applicable legislation, that promote effect their natural, aesthetic or scenic visitor enjoyment of park resources values. Use will be controlled or 11 EO 11644, Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public through a direct association or relation Lands, Federal Register, Vol 37, page 2877, No. 27– directed to protect the resources, Wed. February 9, 1972. to those resources so long as those uses promote safety, and minimize conflicts 12 EO 11989, Off Road Vehicles on Public Lands, are consistent with the protection of the among various users of those lands. Federal Register, Vol 42, page 26959 No: 101–Wed. resources and are compatible with other Also, the agency head shall monitor the May 25, 1977. visitor uses. NPS must manage effects of such use that may be 13 Directors Order #55, September 8, 2000, as recreational use to protect park authorized, and upon that information amended November 17, 2000. resources, provide for public enjoyment, 14 NPS Director’s Order #47 articulates operational policies requiring the protection, promote public safety, and minimize 9 The Redwood Act of March 27, 1978 serves as maintenance or restoration of the natural conflicts with other visitor activities and the basis for any judicial resolution of competing soundscape resource in a condition unimpaired by park uses. Finally, unless the activity is private and public values and interests in the inappropriate noise sources. Inappropriate noise is required by statute, NPS will not allow national park system, and affirms the primary that generated by activities at a level described as consideration of conserving, unimpaired, park excessive, which impacts the park’s natural resources and values. soundscapes and jeopardizes the natural resources 15 1988 NPS Management Policies, Chapter 4 10 36 CFR 2.18 Snowmobiles. or the purposes for which the park was created. 16 1988 NPS Management Policies, Chapter 8

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80915 a recreational activity in a park if it twice in a lifetime, and who seek the Factors Other Than Environmental would involve or result in: resources and values for which the Consequences Considered in Making the • Inconsistency with the park’s parks were created, may be adversely Decision enabling legislation or proclamation, or and irretrievably affected. Safety and Access derogation of the values or purposes for Elimination of these impacts is most which the park was established Safety issues are related to access • Unacceptable impacts on visitor easily and effectively accomplished by issues. Modes of access and volumes of enjoyment due to interference or eliminating snowmobile use. Holding traffic are primary factors. Presently conflict with other visitor use activities use at current levels under all unsafe conditions can be improved, as • Consumptive use of park resources alternatives but G would allow proposed in several alternatives, by • Unacceptable impacts on park documented adverse impacts of separating different uses and modes of resources or natural processes snowmobiles to continue. The level of transport, by eliminating wheeled • Unacceptable levels of danger to the adverse impact varies by resource or vehicle use in places, and by welfare or safety of the public, including value, and by alternative, but it is eliminating large volumes of oversnow participants demonstrated to be more than negligible motorized use especially where Public use of a park is an important and often moderate when considered ungulates use groomed surfaces. Safety reason for the creating and sustaining cumulatively over the three park units. would be most improved where a the national park system. In developing Locally, the impact can be major. The number of these measures are the winter use plan and environmental effect on resources and values is combined, as in alternatives F and G. impact statement, the goal of the parks demonstrated to impact the enjoyment All alternatives hypothesize impacts on was to provide for a winter use of those resources by other visitors. the basis of motorized oversnow access experience to a wide range of people, at current use levels. However, there are Mitigation of the impacts of not just to the most physically fit. Given different mixes of snowcoach, snowmobiles, as proposed in the the mandate of the Organic Act, to snowplane, and snowmobile use, preserve and provide for public different alternatives, is insufficient to distributed differently through the range enjoyment, some level of adverse impact reduce the impacts to a level deemed of alternatives. In some areas, from visitor use during the winter is acceptable within the constraints of the snowmobiles operate on groomed trails acceptable, if the parks mitigate the law, regulations, executive orders and in the same locale as nonomotorized impacts to the greatest extent policies presented as the basis for this visitors, wheeled vehicles and large practicable. Should future monitoring decision. Reduction of numbers of ungulates. Therefore, there is a risk that disclose that the impacts are too much snowmobiles is problematic because continued snowmobile use would result for the resources to sustain, it will be carrying capacity studies are left to the in accidents and is unsafe. In some appropriate to further restrict winter future, and adverse impacts would places, the volume of wheeled vehicle visitor use in the parks. continue until capacities are determined traffic during the winter—much of and effectively implemented. which is associated with snowmobile How Environmental Issues Were staging—results in a higher rate of Considered and Addressed Other winter uses and means of access also produce impacts. Cross accidents. This represents a situation Considering present winter use that must be remedied. The selected country skiing and other nonmotorized activities, the key management concerns alternative eliminates the source of most and objectives relating to park resources forms of recreation are shown to impact safety concerns, snowmobile use, as and values are: Air quality, wildlife wildlife. Since there are areas that can well as wheeled vehicle use on a (especially ungulates), natural be identified as critical to bison and plowed road that currently has a high soundscapes, and opportunities for other ungulates, mitigation as proposed winter accident rate (Highway 89/287 visitor experience (of these resources in some alternatives effectively reduces from Colter Bay to Flagg Ranch). and values, including scenic quality and or eliminates the impairment. Discontinued plowing of the route from aesthetics). Related concerns that are Snowplane use, though limited to Colter Bay to Flagg Ranch would also key elements in the desired condition Jackson Lake, has a dominant and convert Flagg Ranch to an oversnow are the safety of employees and visitors, unmitigated impact on the natural destination. This would provide a new and access for purposes of park soundscape. opportunity of that nature, similar to enjoyment. Finally, there is an issue The use of snowcoaches on groomed that available at Old Faithful in regarding how local, private commercial roads is demonstrated to impact Yellowstone’s interior. Opportunities industries have developed to serve wildlife, air quality, and natural for developing winter recreation around visitors and facilitate their enjoyment of soundscapes. However, mass transit Flagg Ranch are abundant. There is a the parks. snowcoach use effectively mitigates the perception that not plowing the road would make a snowcoach trip from Natural Resources closure of parks to snowmobiles and Colter Bay to Old Faithful too long. results in much less traffic while The analysis of natural resource/ Flagg Ranch, as a destination, allows environmental consequences for a range allowing winter access for current levels people the opportunity to break this trip of alternatives shows clearly that there of visitation. Snowcoaches would up if they are unwilling or unable to are overall adverse impacts associated impact resources or values, or the make the trip to Old Faithful in one day. with snowmobile use in the parks, even enjoyment of them (at the current level when some areas are closed to that use. of visitation) at least a magnitude lower Economic Impacts on Local Snowmobile use at current levels than with snowmobile access. Adverse Communities adversely affects wildlife, air quality, impacts of an NPS managed snowcoach The impacts of any alternative on and natural soundscapes and natural system on wildlife, as in alternative G, economies beyond the gateway odors. Further, it adversely impacts the would occur at low and mitigable levels. communities are generally negligible. enjoyment of those values and resources Gateway communities are affected in by other visitors. The impact on people different alternatives by entrance who may visit the three parks once or closure or area closure (D and F), or

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 80916 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices closure to snowmobiles and change in economies by drastically reducing natural soundscape and opportunities allowable modes of motorized access (B, snowmobile use and visitation to the for enjoyment of the park by visitors. In C and G). Economically, West area. These positions are in conflict. My the Parkway, the impairment is the Yellowstone is most affected through assessment is: first, that snowmobile use result of impacts form snowmobile use the range of alternatives because that is likely to decrease, or at least not on air quality, the natural soundscape, community is most directly tied to increase, on adjacent lands; and second, and opportunities for enjoyment of the access via snowmobile. Not that snowcoach access to the parks will park. coincidentally, the West Entrance to Old invigorate local entrepreneurs in Under the NPS Organic Act, the NPS Faithful is the most adversely impacted marketing a special (albeit different) may not allow the impairment of park oversnow route in the three-unit area. park experience. As explained resources and values, and when there is elsewhere, the effect of alternative G on an impairment, the NPS must eliminate Consistency With Land Use Plans, local economies is expected to be of it. The combination of actions provided Policies or Controls for Adjacent Lands short-term duration—mitigated by for in this Record of Decision will Impacts on adjacent lands for all provisions for implementation over time eliminate the impairment in GTNP alternatives are described on pages 434– and allowing communities and following the winter of 2001–2002, and 474 in the FEIS. There are concerns businesses to adapt. in YNP and the Parkway following the about how any reduction in snowmobile winter of 2002. use within the three parks would Public Comments on the Draft EIS We have also determined that the translate into increased use on national Comments on the draft EIS are snowmobile use now occurring is forest lands in particular. The Forest discussed explicitly in the public inconsistent with the requirements of Service, a cooperating agency, indicates participation section of this record of the Clean Air Act (in the case of YNP that alternative G could result in decision. The vast majority of the and the Parkway), Executive Orders conditions that would necessitate comments did not substantively address 11644 and 11989, the NPS’s general amendments to forest plans because the merits of the EIS analysis. Many snowmobile regulations, and NPS snowmobile use on those lands is at the comments assisted NPS in clarifying or management objectives for the parks. highest tolerance level permissible. My otherwise improving the disclosure of We have determined that the snowplane determination is that use on national impacts in the FEIS (as documented in use occurring in GTNP is inconsistent forests is likely not to increase.17 FEIS Volume III). Most comments (94%) with Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 Further, the forests have provided no expressed some preference for winter and NPS management objectives for the convincing evidence or monitoring data use management that resembled some parks. to support their concerns, or to support alternative evaluated in the draft EIS. I We have determined that the that the need to revisit their forest plans wish to make clear that, although it is snowcoach use that will occur in YNP does not already exist. I consider that not the primary rationale for this and the Parkway under this decision, the period of three years being allowed decision, the public expression of and the snowmobile use that will for a transition to snowcoaches only in preference is certainly a factor that I continue in GTNP in the winter of the parks will facilitate the monitoring considered. The public’s preference in 2002–2003 and thereafter is consistent of recreational snowmobile use on the large body of comment was evenly with the requirements of Executive public lands (national forests) in the divided between those who clearly Orders 11644 and 11989 and the NPS’s Greater Yellowstone Area. I agree that wished for continued snowmobile use general snowmobile regulations. such monitoring is necessary to develop and those who felt that snowmobiles There is no current means of a baseline for gauging the impacts of should not be allowed in the parks. Four mitigation, aside from a reduction of future winter management changes on percent of those who commented numbers unsupported by a carrying public lands, and resources therein. indicated there should be no motorized capacity analysis, that assures recreation Therefore, this is part of the rationale for use or grooming of winter routes in the snowmobile use impacts could be allowing a three-year phase in period. parks. The overwhelming negative reduced, predictably and soon, to a level Potentially affected States and reaction to the preferred alternative B in that does not impair and adversely counties were involved as cooperating the draft EIS, which would have plowed impact these resources and values. agencies in the preparation of this EIS the road from West Yellowstone to Old Snowmobile use for official (see pages 16–18 in the FEIS). Through Faithful, was a factor in considering a administrative or emergency purposes the process, these entities identified no new preferred alternative for the final in the three park units is specifically issues concerning conflicts with any EIS. allowed under the regulations and executive orders cited herein as the land use plans, policies or controls that Findings may exist. Any such impacts are basis for the decision. Incidental inferred in the analysis (FEIS pages Park Values and Resources amounts of snowmobile use in GTNP for 434–435). Concerns expressed by the purposes of winter access to inheld The use of snowmobiles and private lands or to adjacent public lands cooperators are twofold. On the one snowplanes at present levels harms the hand, they are concerned about as provided under the establishment integrity of the resources and values of 18 increased use on adjacent lands legislation for the park. These are not these three parks, and so constitutes an recreation uses, per se, that are the resulting from the parks’ decision, and impairment of the resources and values, how it would affect other public lands, subject of analysis in the FEIS. which is not permissible under the NPS Clean, quiet and odorless wildlife habitat, and currently groomed Organic Act. In YNP, the impairment is snowmobile trail systems. On the other snowmobiles are not available at the result of the impacts from present. Even with technical advances hand, they are concerned that the snowmobile use on air quality, wildlife, decision would devastate local in snowmobiles, the impacts of the natural soundscape, and snowmobile use on wildlife, especially opportunities for enjoyment of the park 17 I believe the analysis indicating that decreased ungulates using groomed routes, use in the parks would result in decreased use by visitors. In GTNP, the impairment is generally in the Greater Yellowstone Area, thereby the result of the impacts from 18 EO 11644, sections (3) and (4), and 16 USC reducing use on forests not increasing it, is sound. snowmobile and snowplane use on the 406d–1, et seq.

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80917 constitutes disturbance and harassment unrestricted backcountry use. Therefore Due to economic impacts (as at a time when individual animals are by limiting nonmotorized use in certain disclosed in the FEIS), measures are particularly challenged for survival. The winter habitats to designated routes, incorporated into the implementation continued use of snowmobiles as adverse impacts of nonmotorized use features of alternative G to allow provided in the alternatives studied are suitably reduced. Where the impacts communities, permittees and other than alternative G is found to be of nonmotorized travel on wildlife concessioners time to adapt. inconsistent with the health and cannot be suitably mitigated through Considering the economic impacts, integrity of resources existing in the route restrictions critical winter range three years are to be allowed for three park units. Continued use hinders will be closed. With this mitigation, conversion to an NPS managed the enjoyment of resources and values limited nonmotorized use is found to be snowcoach system, and existing for which the parks were created, most consistent with park resources and concession contracts will be honored notably natural soundscapes, clean and values, and it facilitates their until they expire. During the first year, clear air, and undisturbed wildlife in a enjoyment. FEIS alternative G closes snowmobile use will be continue under natural setting. certain important winter wildlife habitat existing regulations. During the second The social and economic impacts of to nonmotorized use, and limits use in year of implementation, snowmobile the elimination of most snowmobile use other areas to designated trails and use will be subject to daily limits based in the parks can be mitigated to a high routes only. on historic peak day use, to avoid the degree by providing oversnow access occurrence of days with even higher use using mass transit snowcoaches. Safety and Access than in the past. Then, one more year Considering the analysis of alternatives, The analysis shows that impacts on of snowmobile use, at approximately there is a clear magnitude of difference safety of visitors and employees are 50% of current levels, will be allowed. between the impacts of snowmobiles associated with snowmobile use. It is This affords snowmobile operators three and the impacts of snowcoaches on found that current use by snowmobiles years to take advantage of existing natural resource values and the represents a risk to health and safety. technology for snowcoaches, to realize opportunities to enjoy them. This This risk is mitigated to the highest the investment they presently have in rationale supports the selection of degree in alternative G. Risks associated snowmobiles, and to market new alternative G. with NPS managed snowcoach systems opportunities. NPS will produce an The use of groomed routes by are negligible, since there would be implementation plan as soon as possible snowcoaches adversely affects wildlife, greater controls over speed, time of to develop the details of snowcoach air quality, natural soundscapes, and the operation, driver training and transport in the parks. This plan will be opportunity to enjoy those values, as experience, and the volume of traffic on developed in coordination with gateway disclosed in the FEIS, although the communities, concessioners and adverse effects are negligible to minor. the route. In addition, this system offers access to the public that is equivalent in permittees in order to insure successful These impacts are found not to impair implementation of the alternative. NPS those values and opportunities. This is numbers to current use. In doing so, the parks would be accessible to a larger will also work with these entities to due to the overall decrease in impacts develop and implement a new to a level described as negligible—with population of young, elderly, and disabled visitors. marketing strategy for winter recreation greatly decreased volumes of traffic and in the parks. consequent decreases in odor, noise, Economic Impacts on Local Additional measures will be used to and pollutants. The area within the Communities reduce impacts to the degree possible three park units that would be available during the interim period. This for use without audible motorized It has been found that snowmobile mitigation includes, but is not limited sound would be maximized using use as currently constituted, and as to, the following measures (see also the snowcoach access. An NPS managed evaluated in the range of alternatives, actions and mitigation sections of the mass transit snowcoach system would adversely impacts and impairs park decision, above). assertively implement available resources and values. Therefore, the use During the interim period, technologies for further reducing the must be discontinued in order to meet snowmobile and snowplane use will be amount of sound and pollution created. the primary mandates, regulations and monitored and managed in a manner It would assertively implement policies of the national park service. that prevents or mitigates local impacts schedules and strategies and controls for This has clear economic impacts on all to the greatest extent practicable; minimizing impacts on wildlife due to the local, gateway communities, Ranger patrols will be increased to use of groomed surfaces. Additionally, permittees and concessions that are facilitate monitoring as well as detection because operators of snowcoaches will highly dependent upon winter and on-the-spot handling of impacts be familiar with park roadways and snowmobile use in the parks. However, particularly for wildlife disturbance. trained in appropriate techniques for the greatest impact on these Park concessions will be required to mitigating the effects of vehicle-wildlife communities would be closing the parks mitigate impacts on air quality by encounters the potential for wildlife to winter motorized access entirely. selling only bio-fuels and synthetic harassment will be minimized. Alternative G offers an opportunity for lubes inside the park; Skiing and other nonmotorized uses the same level of access that currently Snowmobile tour guides shall receive adversely affect wildlife, particularly exists, while improving opportunities additional training in appropriate bison, elk, moose, and bighorn sheep. for people who cannot or choose not to methods of avoiding wildlife Backcountry use, in particular, stresses ride snowmobiles. It is found that the disturbance, and park personnel will these ungulates at a time when their cessation in the future of plowing a assertively provide similar information energy reserves are low. In areas portion of the southern route into YNP, to all other users. Prohibit late night adjacent to high use nonmotorized in addition to improving safety, would oversnow travel. routes animals may adapt to regular create additional opportunities for In the third year of the phase-in passage by humans using a predictable people to enjoy a destination winter period, all recreation snowmobile users route. Nonmotorized trail use therefore area (Flagg Ranch) using oversnow in YNP must be accompanied by a has fewer adverse impacts than does transport. permitted guide and travel in groups of

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 80918 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices no more than 11 (including the guide). development of an alternative or as a much winter use, suggesting that YNP The superintendent will be authorized possible impact of winter use; or (2) should be closed in part or altogether, to also require groups and guides in they were not analyzed further based on for the winter season. Because of the GTNP and the Parkway. the rationale presented in FEIS Volume amount of use relative to the available A phase-in period of three years is II, Appendix A. The NPS classified facilities, both ski and snowmobile use necessary to allow the creation and comments as major issues or concerns to sometimes occurs on the same groomed implementation of a functional mass be analyzed in detail based on relevance surface. This adds to the perception of transit system using snowcoaches. to the decision to be made. The too much use, and leads to other issues Measures Taken To Avoid following section, Major Issues, relating to visitor experience and safety. Environmental Harm describes in greater detail those Many people contend that motorized comment categories considered use has greatly affected opportunities The focus of the EIS analysis is to relevant. Issues or Concerns Not for nonmotorized use in the improve environmental conditions Addressed in the Plans/EIS describes surrounding GYA, displacing cross- relative to those which exist due to specific types of comments not carried country skiing and other nonmotorized current use and management. forward for in-depth analysis, and the recreation to the parks. Another aspect Alternative G best improves rationale for their dismissal. of the issue relates to the affordability of environmental conditions, as Major Issues winter access, and access for disabled, demonstrated in the FEIS and this and old and young visitors. Some argue decision rationale. Therefore, the This section summarizes the major for increased availability of motorized features of selected alternative G and the issues that relate to the purpose and access (via snowmobile in particular) to mitigation that applies with this need for action for the future of winter serve these access needs. Another issue decision are construed as measures use in the three NPS units. These issues is the high cost of winter access to the taken to avoid environmental harm. If parallel the existing conditions parks. future monitoring, as provided in this identified in the FEIS in the purpose decision, indicates that impacts are too and need for action. While common Visitor Experience great to sustain additional use, or that concerns exist among the issues, they Expectations for quality winter impairment occurs, it will be are categorized for purposes of analysis recreation experiences are different for appropriate to implement further and alternative formulation. Because the different user groups. This raises management changes. Monitoring plans decision regarding the future of winter contention between groups for which will describe standards or thresholds of use in the GYA is largely programmatic, quiet, solitude, and clean air needs impact, and management actions that relevant issues are those that bear on: (1) conflict with the impacts of will be taken if standards are not met. Winter programs that might be snowmobiles, especially when facilities See the monitoring section of the necessary to address existing for these different groups are in close decision, above. circumstances and achieve desired proximity to each other. Nonmotorized conditions; and (2) the effects of those Public Involvement users are easily affected or displaced by programs. An issue is defined as a point the sight, sound, and odor of Scoping of contention about the specific possible snowmobiles. While skiing generally environmental effect of a specific The NPS accepted public scoping does not affect the quality of the management action or program. comments from April 14 to July 18, snowmobiling experience, there are Generally, comments on the DEIS about 1998. Scoping brochures were mailed to safety issues associated with slower the details of implementing a program about 6,000 interested parties, and 12 traffic on groomed surfaces used by are not considered major issues. public meetings were held throughout higher speed vehicles. In addition the Implementation details will be the GYA and in Idaho, Montana, and quality of the visitor experience can be important during future site-specific Wyoming. In addition to local area and affected by the number of available analyses under the new plan. regional meetings, the NPS held four support facilities (such as parking lots national meetings in Salt Lake City, Another opportunity for public involvement is the ability to comment or rest rooms), the extent to which Denver, Minneapolis, and Washington facilities are crowded, and the D.C. About 2,000 comment letters were on the DEIS. No new major issues were availability of information. received (about 1,200 of these were form identified as a result of public letters), from which about 15,000 comments on the DEIS. FEIS Volume III Human Health and Safety discrete comments were obtained. contains the analysis of public Four primary health and safety issues Scoping respondents included comments on the DEIS, and responses to were identified regarding winter visitor businesses; private and nonprofit the comments. Major issues are use: organizations; local, state and federal described below. • The effect of motorized vehicular agencies; and the public at large. Visitor Use and Access emissions and noise on employees who Comments were received from 46 states are required to travel or work in areas and several foreign countries. Various user groups contend that the national parks offer either too much or with high traffic levels. Visitors may be Summary of Public Scoping Comment not enough of various types of use. subjected to some of the same impacts. Comments received during scoping Some people are concerned that the • Speed limits and the frequency of cover a full range of topics including parks do not offer an adequate range of motor vehicle accidents and fatalities, issues, concerns, analysis questions, winter experiences and will not be able and the number of nighttime collisions procedural questions, general opinions, to respond to future winter recreation involving wildlife that often result in and requests. Comments were sorted demand. Others suggested that winter severe injury or fatality to both animals into the categories shown in Table 2, experiences should include and people. pages 22–24 in the FEIS . dogsledding, off-road motorized play • Avalanche hazards. The NPS addressed all comments areas, and increases in both groomed • Safety risks where different modes received in one of two ways: (1) Either motorized and nonmotorized trails. of winter transport are co-located or in they were analyzed in detail through the Other people voiced concerns about too close proximity, like the CDST where

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80919 wheeled-vehicles and snowmobiles another analysis, is beyond the scope of Idaho; West Yellowstone and share the highway right-of-way. the purpose and need for action, or is a Livingston, Montana; Cody and Jackson, matter that is governed by procedural Wyoming; and Denver, Colorado. The Social and Economic Issues laws (like the National Environmental proceedings of each hearing were Many comments reflected the effect of Policy Act—NEPA). transcribed and entered into the record. changes in parks management actions • Privatization An average of 45 persons spoke at each on local communities. Local businesses • Summer/Winter Use Comparisons hearing. provide services to visitors near both • Wildlife Carrying Capacities parks, and many local economies rely, • Land Use Comments on the Draft Environmental in part, on revenues from parks visitors • Economic Effects: Costs Impact Statement in the winter. Concern was voiced that • EIS Process Over 48,600 pieces of correspondence eliminating oversnow travel and • Cooperating Agencies were received in response to the DEIS. snowmobiles in particular or closing an • NEPA and NPS Policy Correspondence consisted of individual entrance to a park during the winter • Scientific Methods and Data letters, form letters, e-mails, telephone could have a detrimental effect on local Federal Register Notices calls, and hearing presentations. This economies. Other commenters stated body of comment is summarized, that concern for parks’ resources should A notice of intent to prepare an EIS categorized, indexed and responded to be elevated above economics. was published in the Federal Register in Volume III (parts one, two, and three) on April 15, 1998, officially beginning of the FEIS. Part one includes the Natural Resources the scoping process. A notice of summary, individual letters and specific Impacts of winter use on natural availability for the Winter Use Plan and responses to the contents of the letters. resources revolve around three major Draft Environmental Impact Statement Part two includes the variety of form issues. (EIS) for Yellowstone and Grand Teton letters received (separate letters having • The impact of groomed surfaces and National Parks and the John D. the same content) and specific their use on wildlife: Over the last Rockefeller Jr., Memorial Parkway responses to their content. Part three several years, bison have been removed appeared in the Federal Register, contains the results of compiling all from the population because they have August 15, 1999. The notice indicated comments from all sources, categorizing migrated from YNP to state and private that the public comment due date was and summarizing them, and then lands during the winter. Some people November 15. The comment period was providing a response to each. This commented on the effect that extended twice, once to December 1, approach was considered necessary backcountry skiing might have on 1999, and again to December 15, 1999. owing to the extreme volume of public wildlife, particularly the displacement Notices of these deadline extensions comments on the DEIS. Following is a of large ungulates from important winter were published in the Federal Register. brief analysis of recurrent themes in the range. The notice of availability for the FEIS body of comment, and how NPS • Air quality: The effect of was published on October 20, 2000. responds to them. snowmobile emissions on air quality Many commenters expressed Distribution of the Draft Environmental was identified as a concern with respect consternation about the lack of a ‘‘no Impact Statement to health, natural resources, and snowmobiling’’ alternative in the DEIS, aesthetic and wilderness values. For In August 1999, postcards were and suggested that impact descriptions example, on high snowmobile use days mailed to 6000 persons notifying them and data to support the EIS and the in YNP, the visual evidence and odor of of the impending release of the DEIS. preferred alternative were not detailed snowmobile exhaust is apparent in Approximately 4,000 draft documents enough. NPS responds first, that a ‘‘no some areas. The effect of hydrocarbons, and summaries were mailed to snowmobiling’’ alternative was carbon monoxide, and particulate interested parties during September provided in the DEIS—alternative G. matter emitted by snowmobiles on 1999. In addition, documents were Secondly, in some cases the NPS has water quality was also a concern. mailed to agencies, businesses, added information to support the • Oversnow vehicle sound: The organizations, and public officials who analysis of impacts in the FEIS. sound levels of snowmobiles and had either requested the document or Additionally, NPS is engaged in snowcoaches were raised as issues with were generally interested in the programmatic planning, rather than regard to aesthetics and wilderness management of winter use in the parks. project-specific planning; therefore values. For example, on some days it is analysis and data collection have been Public Meetings/Hearings difficult for most visitors to travel to an conducted on a reconnaissance level. area in YNP where snowmachines Sixteen public meetings using an Further, where data is lacking or cannot be heard. For this reason some open house format were held early in unavailable even at that level, CEQ people question whether the use of the scoping period ranging from April regulations provide for the decision snowmobiles and snowcoaches is through July of 1998. Meetings were process to continue based on best appropriate in the national parks. Other held in each of the five gateway available data and professional people state that the sound of communities to the three park units. application of credible methods. snowmachines has no impact on their Other meetings were held within the Many people stated they could not ability to enjoy the parks. region at Dubois and Casper, Wyoming, support any of the DEIS alternative Billings and Bozeman, Montana, and ‘‘mixes.’’ A large number of comments Issues or Concerns Not Addressed in Boise, Ashton and Pocatello, Idaho. levied criticism on the preferred the Plans/EIS Meetings outside the region were held at alternative—to the point that Scoping issues and concerns that Denver, Colorado, Minneapolis, constructive comments on the other were not addressed in the EIS are listed Minnesota, Salt Lake City, Utah, and alternatives were greatly lacking. Three below. The rationale for their dismissal Washington, D.C. Public hearings to additional ‘‘alternatives’’ were may be found in the FEIS on pages 26– solicit public comment on the DEIS proposed: Revised Alternative E (in 28. Essentially the reason for dismissal were held during the month of October various forms provided by cooperating is that the issue is being dealt with in 1999 in the following cities: Idaho Falls, agencies and the Blue Ribbon Coalition),

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 80920 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices the Citizens’ Solution (provided by a change from the current condition. The agencies on February 13, 1998. consortium of conservation groups), and EIS expresses impacts or changes in Appendix A in the FEIS (Volume II) the Natural Regulation Alternative terms that allow people to understand further discusses coordination with (provided by The Fund for Animals).19 how each alternative satisfies the cooperating agencies. All such comments were read as the purpose and need for action. It is Through the EIS process, NPS made it decisions that people would like to see unreasonable to expect that all clear that veto or decision-making the NPS make, based upon their alternatives would address all aspects of power does not accompany cooperating opinions about impacts and their the purpose and need equally, or that all agency status. As the lead agency interpretations about laws. alternatives worthy of consideration charged with carrying out the NEPA The body of comment included little would have no impacts. In the final process under Sec. 102(2)(c) of NEPA, substantive information beyond that analysis, the NPS concludes that the the NPS retains sole decision-making disclosed in the DEIS, and did not purpose and need for action articulated authority over the EIS and its process. demonstrate that an alternative (feature) in the EIS is appropriate, and that the There were a number of comments on did not belong in the range of choices range of alternatives considered in the DEIS relating to the designation of available for the decision-maker. Given detail is adequate. See Comparison of cooperating agencies. Many people the ability of a decision-maker to mix Alternatives at the end of this decision objected to the inclusion of the counties features from the FEIS range of document. in particular, feeling that their alternatives, much of the criticism in the involvement biased the decision-making public comment does not apply to the Public Response to the FEIS process and the EIS; others felt that the analysis. Regarding the great amount of The FEIS was published and available NPS did not involve or listen to the comment on the preferred alternative, to the public in hardcopy and on the cooperating agencies. Most cooperators and perceived lack of justification for it, internet on October 10, 2000. stated that there was insufficient time or the NPS responds by saying that such Summaries of the FEIS were mailed to information to provide adequate input criticism is more appropriately applied about 46,500 interested parties, and to the NPS, and that the NPS had not to the decision. In fact, the NPS changed about 400 copies of the FEIS were met the terms of the signed memoranda the preferred alternative between draft mailed at that time. The public was able of agreement. Conversely, many of the and final EIS whereupon most of these to provide comments up until October cooperating agencies commented that comments no longer apply. 31. Due to the potential public they had provided good information Some commenters said that the controversy of the selection of that the NPS did not consider or desired conditions or objectives were alternative G as the preferred alternative incorporate. A table that illustrates the too general, and that there is no in the FEIS, the former Assistant extent to which the NPS interacted with demonstrated need for management Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and cooperating agencies is contained in change. In effect, such comments Parks agreed to solicit public comment Appendix A of the FEIS. missed the real issues that are conveyed on that document. About 10,970 The NPS believes that much of the by statements of existing conditions. comment documents were received, criticism from cooperating agencies The NPS responds by explaining that including letters, e-mails, and postcards. stems from the time frame for producing the EIS is programmatic, leading to a Comments were read and evaluated this EIS, which is noted in the plan, which is general in nature. In regarding their content. A comment cooperating agreements, a lack of addition issues regarding resource summary is attached to this decision experience, and a fundamentally different perspective on the issues. Few impacts, health and safety, and visitor (Attachment B). Generally, there were federal agencies have experience experience are documented sufficiently more respondents favoring elimination dealing with such a large number of by the NPS to indicate the need for of snowmobiles from the parks than cooperating agencies on a single NEPA major management changes supported those who support continued project. With the exception of the USFS by a new plan. snowmobiling. State and local Given the scope of analysis, the NPS and the State of Montana, few of the governments and most business developed alternatives (alternative cooperating agencies have experience interests who responded favor plans) as possible ways to proceed from producing environmental impact continued snowmobiling. the current condition toward the desired statements, and the analyses necessary condition. The NPS maintains that Consultation in their areas of special expertise.20 21 public access during the winter is an NPS believes it met all of its Cooperating Agencies appropriate objective to be achieved. responsibilities under the cooperating Accommodating a variety of recreational The details of cooperation with other agreements to the best of its ability uses is also valid. In each case, activities agencies are provided on pages 16–17 under the highly constraining time must be evaluated in terms of impacts and Appendix A of the FEIS. In frame. on parks’ resources and values, health summary, State and county and safety, and visitor enjoyment. governments surrounding the GYA American Indian Tribes Alternatives that vary the location, requested and were granted cooperating The details of consultation with amount and proximity of uses are agency status (40 CFR 1501.6) in American Indian Tribes are provided in needed to assess the relative impact or December 1997 and January 1998. The the FEIS on pages 18–20. To summarize: NPS requested that the US Forest NPS is committed to recognizing the 19 Most features of Revised Alternative E and The Service become a cooperating agency past and present existence of American Citizens’ Solution were covered within the DEIS because of possible impacts on Indians in the region, and the traces of range of alternatives. Certain features were either their use as an important part of the considered to be implementation details or outside surrounding national forests from the scope of analysis. The Natural Regulation changes in the parks’ winter use Alternative, by advocating no motorized access or management; and the USFS acceded. 20 The CEQ definition of special expertise is: groomed routes, was considered outside the scope Agreements were developed to assign ‘‘statutory responsibility, agency mission, or related of analysis—although some alternatives close program experience.’’ (40 CFR 1508.26) sections of the parks to motorized use, and adaptive formal roles in the EIS process and 21 Montana has a state law governing management could conceivably result in other establish expectations. The NPS held its environmental policy: Montana Environmental sections being closed over time. first meeting with the cooperating Policy Act.

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80921 cultural environment to be preserved State Historic Preservation Offices NPS and USFS through the Greater and interpreted. NPS initiated In October 1995, a programmatic Yellowstone Coordinating Committee consultation along with scoping in May agreement was developed among the which resulted in a commitment to 1998 in accordance with the National Conference of State Historic monitor possible but unanticipated Presidential Memorandum of April 29, Preservation Offices (SHPO), the impacts on grizzly bears as a result of 1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government Advisory Council on Historic the action. Relations with Native American Tribal Preservation (Council) and the NPS. In Alternatives Considered Governments’’ and in compliance with accordance with the agreement and a variety of laws, federal regulations, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Alternative Development and agency management policies and Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. Alternative development is described directives. Eight tribes were identified 470(f)), consultation with the Wyoming, in detail on pages 31–32 and in as being traditionally affiliated with the Montana, and Idaho SHPOs and the Appendix A of the FEIS. The GYA. Council was initiated in May 1998. The alternatives for the Winter Use Plans By April 1999, an additional 13 NPS sent copies of the scoping brochure and Environmental Impact Statement contemporary tribes had been (May 1998) and the draft preliminary for Yellowstone National Park (YNP), recognized by YNP and GTNP as winter use alternatives (December 1998) Grand Teton National Park (GTNP) and traditionally affiliated with the GYA. to the SHPOs and the Council. In the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial The NPS notified the 21 affiliated tribes accordance with their request, the NPS Parkway (the Parkway) were formulated of an affiliated tribal consultation continued to consult with the Wyoming, in response to the major issues and concerns raised through public and meeting to be held at YNP on May 20, Montana, and Idaho SHPOs and the internal scoping. In addition to the at which the Plans/EIS would be one of Council regarding actions described in scoping process, the National Park the planning projects and issues the Winter Use Plans/EIS that may affect Service (NPS) and the cooperating discussed. On April 23, NPS faxed cultural resources (FEIS Appendix E). agencies met in Idaho Falls, Idaho, for invitation letters to the tribal The NPS mailed copies of the Draft EIS to each SHPO and the Council for 3 days during October 1998 to formulate consultation meeting, and four days initial concepts for alternatives. Later, later the NPS mailed copies of the draft review and comment. Before completion of the FEIS, the NPS contacted the similar workshops were conducted with alternatives to each tribe. During the the staffs in both parks. For a complete week of May 3, the NPS made follow- SHPOs of all three states directly, and all offices stated that they had no discussion of the concepts generated up telephone calls to each of the tribes, during the workshops see FEIS to confirm receipt of the draft comments on the DEIS and saw no need for further consultation. Appendix A. alternatives and encourage participation The NPS planning team evaluated the in the affiliated tribal consultation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concepts in terms of their meeting on May 20. The settlement agreement under responsiveness to the major issues and At that meeting, tribal representatives which the winter use plan and EIS were concerns, the decision to be made, and voiced concerns that oversnow produced also required the NPS to the purpose and need for the Winter Use motorized vehicles, the grooming of prepare a biological assessment (BA) Plans. The concepts were also evaluated road and trail surfaces, and the and request formal consultation with against their adherence to current law, movement of people would negatively the USFWS pursuant to section 7(a)(2) park management guidelines, and NPS impact YNP’s bison population. The of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2) and its mandates and policies. Lastly, each affiliated tribes received copies of the implementing regulations. To comply, concept was evaluated for its economic DEIS for review and comment in mid- on February 16, 2000 the NPS requested and technical feasibility. The concepts September 1999, and were notified of from the USFWS an updated list of all that best met the above criteria were six public hearings on the draft plans in federally protected threatened, packaged into the range of alternatives late-September 1999. On October 6, endangered, proposed, or candidate discussed below. Each alternative 1999, members of the Assiniboine and species that might occur in the affected proposed considers a different means of Sioux (Fort Peck), Cheyenne River area (FEIS Appendix D). Because winter achieving the desired condition of the Sioux, Confederated Salish and use is highly controversial, and the NPS parks in the winter while minimizing Kootenai, Crow, Lac Courte Oreilles, was aware of the potential for impacts to park resources. Nez Perce, Rosebud Sioux, the considerable post-draft changes, it Scope of Analysis in the FEIS Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, and elected not to initiate consultation at the organizations met with Yellowstone and time the DEIS was issued. Instead, a BA The scope of analysis determines the Grand Teton staff to discuss the Winter was prepared for the FEIS preferred range of alternatives to be considered. Use Plans as part of fall 1999 alternative, and subsequently submitted The analysis in the EIS is limited to government-to-government tribal to USFWS on July 5, 2000.22 On October recreation during the wintertime (about consultation meetings. 25, 2000, USFWS provided a letter December 15 through March 15, annually). Geographically, the analysis The NPS will continue to consult concurring with NPS’ determination in is limited to recreation management with representatives of affiliated tribes the biological assessment that within the boundaries of the three as actions resulting from this plan are implementation of the winter use plans national park units.23 Recreational use implemented. The goal of consultation as proposed is not likely to affect considerations and supporting facilities is to insure that the affiliated tribes’ threatened or endangered species or migratory birds in the action area. The interests and concerns are adequately 23 As a matter of process under CEQ regulations, addressed, as well as to develop and letter notes the coordination between the impacts of park management that are known or accomplish future programs in a way suspected to occur at other times and places must that respects the beliefs, traditions, and 22 Actions taken in accordance with Endangered be disclosed in the EIS. In this EIS, economic Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for impacts outside park boundaries are disclosed in other cultural values of the American Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities the socioeconomic impacts section. Physical and Indian tribes who have ancestral ties to under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, resource effects are disclosed in the sections on the area. March 1998. adjacent lands and cumulative impacts.

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 80922 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices are limited to those that are technically implementing sound and emission groomed highway surface, and possible at the present time or are standards for air quality and motor eliminating snowmobile use on Jackson feasible for development and vehicle sound issues. By winter Lake. Emphasizing uses in different implementation. The range of 2008(2009, strict emission and sound areas of the park minimizes conflicts alternatives presents options for requirements would be required by all between nonmotorized and motorized motorized and nonmotorized winter vehicles entering the parks. In addition users, and addresses issues about visitor recreational use in the three park units this alternative emphasizes an adaptive access and experience. Support facilities considering reasonably expected approach to park resource management, would have minimal amenities. In this technological improvements in which would allow the results of new alternative, visitor access routes and emissions and sound of snowmachines. and ongoing research and monitoring to timing would be modified to provide One alternative evaluates the impacts of be incorporated as it becomes available. safer conditions. Over time, issues current winter use (per the settlement Adaptive management increases the regarding impacts on natural resources agreement and CEQ regulations). In this Park Service’s ability to solve visitor would be addressed, particularly in instance, ‘‘no action’’ is interpreted as access and experience issues and Grand Teton and on the east side of current management, which is resource issues over time. Using the Yellowstone. appropriate for programmatic criteria stated within Executive Order Alternative E planning.24 (EO) 11644 (as amended) and its implementing regulation (36 CFR 2.18), This alternative emphasizes the Alternatives monitoring results demonstrating protection of wildlife and other natural Alternative A (No Action) disturbance to wildlife or damage to resources while allowing park visitors This alternative reflects current use park resources would be cause to access to a range of winter recreation and management practices in the parks implement actions for mitigating these experiences. It uses an adaptive and meets the requirement for including conditions (for example, closure to planning approach that allows the a no action alternative in an EIS.25 winter visitor use or trail restrictions). results of new and ongoing research and monitoring to be incorporated. Key Alternative A is a baseline for analysis Alternative C and reflects existing conditions. Other changes to current recreational alternatives are intended to improve the This alternative provides for opportunities are: eliminating motorized existing condition in one or more major maximum winter visitor opportunities oversnow access in Grand Teton and the issue areas. Issues associated with for a range of park experiences, with Parkway except for use on the Grassy alternative A include visitor access emphasis on motorized recreation, Lake Road and north of Flagg Ranch difficulties, visitor experience conflicts, while mitigating some natural resource into Yellowstone, and eliminating all unsafe conditions, and resource impacts and safety concerns. Key winter motorized use on Jackson Lake. This alternative addresses the full impacts. changes in recreational opportunities include: plowing the road from West range of winter use issues in Alternative B Yellowstone to Old Faithful to allow Yellowstone over time, but the current This alternative provides for a access by wheeled vehicles, providing a condition would prevail in the short moderate range of affordable and widened highway corridor to term. Using the criteria stated in EO appropriate winter visitor experiences. accommodate the CDST, and providing 11644 (as amended) and its Key changes in recreational additional groomed trails for both implementing regulation (36 CFR 2.18), opportunities include: Plowing the road motorized and nonmotorized uses. This monitoring results demonstrating from West Yellowstone to Old Faithful alternative directly addresses issues that disturbance to wildlife or damage to to allow mass transit access by wheeled arose during scoping about potential park resources would be cause to vehicles, moving the CDST to a year- impacts of management change on local implement actions for mitigating these round path from Moran to Flagg Ranch, economies. It shows how the range of conditions (for example, closure to and phasing out snowmobile use on winter opportunities could be snowmobile use). Alternative E calls for Jackson Lake. Over the next 10 years, an preserved, applying mitigation instituting an advisory committee to advisory committee would make primarily in the areas of air quality and make recommendations about emission recommendations on phasing and sound impacts. and sound standards. Local, county, state, and federal agencies as well as Alternative D 24 Many commenters on the DEIS stated that the representatives from the snowmobile ‘‘no action’’ alternative must be ‘‘no This alternative emphasizes industry and environmental groups snowmobiling’’, and that the court settlement opportunities for visitor access to the would participate on this committee. In showed that to be the appropriate course of action. unique winter aspects of the parks (for Grand Teton and the Parkway, the full The park service’s interpretation of ‘‘no action’’ example, geysers, geothermal areas, means no change in general management direction range of issues are addressed more from the present. The settlement agreement did not wildlife, and scenic vistas), and immediately by limiting oversnow include any concessions to claims by The Fund for protection of those qualities and natural motorized use to the north end of the Animals, nor did it remove any options within the resources by phasing in cleaner and park, thus separating uses and park service’s discretion for park management from quieter modes of travel. It focuses the range of alternatives to be considered. In eliminating most resource and visitor approving the settlement agreement, the court winter visitor activities near destination experience conflicts relating to asserted that a comprehensive winter use EIS (in areas and gateway communities. Key snowmobile use. accordance with CEQ regulations) would be changes in recreational opportunities written. include: eliminating motorized Alternative F 25 CEQ 40 Most Asked Questions, question number 3. Where an existing program is being oversnow access to Yellowstone through Alternative F emphasizes wildlife evaluated, ‘‘no action’’ is ‘‘no change in its East Entrance, limiting snowmobile protection. Key changes in recreational management.’’ ‘‘No action’’ may be thought of as use in Grand Teton and the Parkway to opportunities include: eliminating all continuing with the present course of action until the CDST and the Grassy Lake Road, winter access to Yellowstone’s interior the action is changed. CEQ states that in such instances, ‘‘to construct an alternative based on no eliminating wheeled-vehicle access through its North and West Entrances, management at all would be a useless academic from Colter Bay to Flagg Ranch to eliminating motorized oversnow access exercise.’’ accommodate oversnow vehicles on the in Grand Teton and the Parkway except

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80923 for use on the Grassy Lake Road and Flagg Ranch a destination via oversnow Rating Definition north of Flagg Ranch into Yellowstone, transport, and eliminating all winter and eliminating all winter motorized motorized use on Jackson Lake. This +2 ...... Minor beneficial impact use on Jackson Lake. For YNP this alternative addresses the full range of +1 ...... Identifiable but negligible bene- alternative addresses issues regarding issues regarding safety, natural resource ficial impact protection of wildlife resources by impacts, and visitor experience and 0 ...... Neutral levelÐno adverse im- access. It addresses the issues in a way pact, no beneficial impact focusing winter visitor activities near ¥1 ...... Identifiable but negligible ad- scenic areas in the eastern and southern that would make it necessary for local verse impact portions of YNP. These areas are economies to adapt, and for visitors ¥2 ...... Minor adverse impact generally outside important winter wanting motorized oversnow access to ¥3 ...... Moderate adverse impact range for large ungulate wildlife species. the parks to use snowcoaches rather ¥4 ...... Major adverse impact In Grand Teton and the Parkway, the than snowmobiles. full range of issues is addressed by Comparison of Alternatives With reference to the summarized limiting oversnow motorized use to the impacts by alternative in the FEIS north end of the park, thus separating A comparison of alternative actions Chapter II (Table 12), a rating was and the effects of the alternatives may uses and eliminating most resource and assigned to each cell; e.g., where a major be found in the FEIS beginning on page visitor experience conflicts relating to beneficial impact was disclosed, a +4 66 (Tables 11 and 12). The following snowmobile use. was assigned to that block. This rating process, using the FEIS data, is represents a composite rating, and it Alternative G (The FEIS Preferred designed to illustrate—in a relative should be noted that the detailed effects Alternative) fashion—how each alternative meets the analysis represented by the rating is purpose and need for action. The This alternative emphasizes cleaner, found in Chapter IV of the FEIS. The purpose and need elements are quieter access to the parks using the impact topics were weighted equally in equivalent to the impact topics assessed technologies available today. It would this rating. All impact topics for all in the EIS. The rating scale is defined allow oversnow access on all routes alternatives were rated in this fashion below. currently available via NPS-managed and then tabulated accordingly. A chart snowcoach only. Other key changes in Rating Definition tabulating the ratings for major impact recreational opportunities include: topics, or purpose and need elements, is eliminating winter plowing on the +4 ...... Major beneficial impact shown below. Colter Bay to Flagg Ranch route, making +3 ...... Moderate beneficial impact BILLING CODE 4310±0901±09P

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 80924 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

This chart illustrates effects relative to Therefore, another data set and chart chart, below, shows alternative A as a neutral environmental baseline were generated to normalize the ratings having no effects relative to the existing reflecting an assessment of no relative to alternative A. That is, for condition, and the other alternatives as identifiable adverse or beneficial each impact topic, the difference having positive or negative effects effect.26 In the EIS, the defined between the ratings for alternative A compared to that base. The chart is an environmental baseline is the existing and the analogous ratings for each other illustration of the extent to which each condition, or alternative A (no action). alternative was gauged. For example, alternative meets the purpose and need alternative A has a rating of +3 for for action, moving management from the 26 For such illustrations, the selection of a rating scale has many possible permutations. In this case, visitor experience and F has a rating of existing to the desired condition. a scale showing positive and negative values was ¥3 for the same element; the relative selected in order to better visualize the adverse difference (or the scale difference) impacts as opposed to the beneficial impacts of ¥ 27 each alternative. An added feature of this scale is between the two is 6. The resulting that it illustrates the existing condition, represented The ‘‘effects’’ scale does not apply to the second by Alternative A, as a condition to be improved in 27 This explains why the chart shows values up chart; it is the relative change from alternative A terms of ‘‘purpose and need’’ elements. to +/¥6, when the rating scale for effects is +/¥4. that is now illustrated.

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80925

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

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 80926 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices resource conditions overall, there would experiments that test predictions and evaluation strategies are then employed still be disturbance to wildlife assumptions in management plans, and to evaluate outcomes relative to associated with snowmobile use at using the resulting information to acceptable thresholds, and assist in the certain times and certain places. improve the plans. General resource development of management Analysis details such as this apply to all monitoring is appropriate where alternatives. Monitoring within the alternatives. The reader is referred to standards exist either in laws, framework of adaptive management is Table 12 and Chapter IV in the FEIS, regulations or general management critical because of the uncertainty of where the detailed analyses are plans. Techniques must be available to predictions based on limited summarized and presented respectively. measure conditions for effective information. It provides systematic comparison with the standard. Environmentally Preferred Alternative feedback for management, and allows Additionally, the National Parks adjustment of activities to mitigate Based on reduced impacts to human Omnibus Act of 1998 requires a program unplanned or undesirable outcomes. health and safety, air quality, visitor of inventory and monitoring of National access, the natural soundscape and Park System resources to establish A critical step in adaptive wildlife the NPS has identified baseline information and to provide management involves the National alternative G as the environmentally information on long-term trends of the Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Each preferred alternative. The U.S. condition of national park system time a new management proposal is Environmental Protection Agency, in its resources (16 U.S.C. 5934). The service evaluated the analysis must be comments on both the Draft and Final also must use the results of scientific documented by performing the EISs, similarly identifies this alternative research, including monitoring and appropriate level of NEPA compliance. as its environmentally preferred action. inventory, in making decisions about Some actions, such as permanent road the management of parks (16 U.S.C. closures to protect wildlife or the Information Contact 5936). construction of new facilities may For more information on this decision The Winter Use EIS identifies require an additional site-specific NEPA or on the FEIS, please contact the offices information needs related to winter use analysis, which includes public of: as it may impact critical park values: air scoping. Some actions might be Karen Wade, National Park Service— quality, natural quiet, wildlife, aquatic administrative in nature, or be Intermountain Region, 12795 West resources, and visitor experience. Both implementable through application of a Alameda Parkway, Lakewood, CO adaptive management and monitoring NEPA categorical exclusion (Ref: NPS 80225. require standards, or thresholds, to 12). Steve Iobst, Grand Teton National Park, establish baselines upon which to assess degradation to monitored park values. The adaptive management process is PO Drawer 170, Moose, WY 80312 shown schematically in Figure 1. Tables Michael Finley, Yellowstone National The initial identification of indicators, standards, methods and management follow that prescribe monitoring Park, PO BOX 168, Yellowstone, standards, methods and proposed WY 82190. responses that relate to critical values is located in FEIS appendix I. This is the management actions for critical Attachment A—Monitoring and basis for developing monitoring plans resources in each winter management Adaptive Management Plans under authority of this decision. zone. These are tables 12 through 22. Standards, Methods, and Intensity by Coordination and Responsibility Monitoring Program Management Zone Requirements General resource monitoring applies Monitoring and Adaptive Management Monitoring programs will be when adequate information exists to Introduction coordinated between Yellowstone and make informed management decisions. Grand Teton National Parks. The It is the process of collecting General resource inventory (and programs will function and be information to evaluate if the objectives monitoring) and adaptive management coordinated through the planning staffs of a management plan are being are two approaches to assure the of both parks. The development of realized. General monitoring techniques implementation and success of annual plans and reports will be (as opposed to monitoring conducted management actions. General resource coordinated through the planning units, within the adaptive management inventory and monitoring in accordance and the planning units will be framework) will be employed to assess with the National Park Service (NPS) 77 responsible for delivering those impacts to public health and safety; Resource Management Guidelines (NPS products to management. Other park geothermal features; water quality; 1991) is a necessary part of the decision divisions will coordinate with planning, threatened and endangered species; that proceeds from the Winter Use Final and provide resources for performing trumpeter swans and some aspects of EIS (See Appendix I). Adaptive monitoring tasks. management is also a component of this visitor experience, including access and decision. Adaptive Management Program circulation. NPS–77, Natural Resources The two approaches are distinguished The essential first step when Management Guideline, will be used by the degree of uncertainty regarding formulating an adaptive management initially as a guide to monitoring the impacts to park values. Adaptive strategy for the affected environment is specific resource areas. As new management is an appropriate approach to articulate the critical uncertainties, techniques are developed, or as when important information pertaining particularly where some information is commonly accepted procedures become to natural resource and visitor use known about a specific resource but available, monitoring protocols will management is lacking, and there is a conclusive evidence is currently change. need to take immediate management unavailable. Based on current Tables follow that prescribe action rather than to wait for additional knowledge, a management scenario is monitoring standards, methods and information to be collected. It is a then designed to test specific possible management actions for critical process of implementing management hypotheses relating to the critical resources in each winter management decisions as scientifically driven uncertainties. Monitoring and zone. These are tables 1 through 11.

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80927

Annual Monitoring and Adaptive • The zones to be sampled, along data must be collected effectively in Management Plans with the indicators, standards, and accordance with a plan. Data must be The overall objective for monitoring methods to be used. captured in an accessible information • and adaptive management is to assess Specific locations for monitoring, system, capable of evaluation and the long-term effects of management and the planned intensity—frequency of statistical manipulation. Then, actions on park resources and values. monitoring. evaluations must be put in meaningful • Specific objectives accrue to each winter A schedule (times) for data terms for management. The requirement management zone (FEIS Table xx and collection and submittal. of a formal report is essential to meet • Figures xx and xx). With reference to The division or individual that is this need. The report should be the following tables, for each responsible for monitoring and published to a standard that is management zone and for each resource reporting. appropriate for public consumption. of concern, monitoring indicators are It is expected that initial monitoring Annual monitoring reports will be presented. For each indicator, a will be intensive, both in geographic standard either exists or is hypothesized and temporal extent, so that correlations brief, and will meet the following (for adaptive management). Also, for can be made and results can be requirements: each indicator a monitoring method and extrapolated. It is also expected that • Sum up the information collected intensity is prescribed. Finally, monitoring over time will become less during the year. management actions are indicated if the intensive and arrive at a low intensity, • Express conclusions relating to each maintenance level. Sampling schedules standards should be exceeded. management zone and indicator that Monitoring and adaptive management can vary from year to year, focusing on was monitored. plans will be developed annually during different areas within the park units. workplanning and budget processes for Monitoring plans will continue to be • Extrapolate the conclusions to other the coming year. Plans will be coordinated between Yellowstone and areas, when possible and appropriate. developed through the planning staffs of Grand Teton so that common methods • State the need for applying both park units. Monitoring will be are used, efficiency is achieved, and management actions based on conducted on a sampling basis for the results are comparable. Annual monitoring. purpose of effective use of funds and monitoring reports will be written and • personnel. The guiding principle for publicized through the planning units of Make recommendations for changes monitoring is to collect purposeful the two parks. in monitoring locations, protocols, data—even if the amount is limited— techniques or thresholds that should be rather than collecting a great deal of Annual Monitoring and Adaptive considered in the monitoring plan for data that cannot be used statistically to Management Reports the following year. arrive at valid conclusions. Therefore, Feedback for management is implicit BILLING CODE 4310±01±P monitoring plans will be brief and will in monitoring and adaptive management cover the following items: programs. In order for feedback to occur,

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 80928 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80929

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 80930 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80931

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 80932 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80933

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 80934 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80935

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 80936 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80937

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 80938 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80939

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 80940 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80941

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 80942 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80943

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 80944 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80945

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 80946 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80947

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 80948 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80949

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 80950 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

BILLING CODE 4310±01±C

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80951

Attachment B—Summary of Public A second set of letters and e-mails, • Support for or against a specific Comments on the FEIS numbering 55, is distinguished by more alternative Summary of Public Comment on the discussion specific to the FEIS and the • Support for or against individual FEIS process that produced it. They generally components of a specific alternative provide greater amounts of detail and • Introduction rationale for their statements. This set of Support for or against a specific After the FEIS was published on correspondence includes the mode of recreational oversnow travel October 10, 2000 the public was invited cooperating agencies, other federal, • Flaws in the analysis presented in to comment up until October 31. The tribal, state or local agencies (or their the FEIS total body of comment divides into two representatives), concessioners, • Pertinent new information or data basic types. First, the content of most of advocacy groups, and a number of that was omitted from the FEIS the documents fell into categories of individuals. Most had commented repeated topics, statements and earlier on the Draft EIS. These letters • New alternatives that were not rationale that were not explicit to the were read and summarized point by analyzed in the FEIS FEIS analysis. NPS read all pieces of point for the decision maker, to whom Categories of comments and the mail and coded the statements that were copies of the letters were also number received are listed in the made in each. A summary of this body submitted. This attachment contains a following table. The comments are of comment is provided in a table with general summary of the letters, by group listed with the most often received accompanying conclusions. In this type. comments descending to the least often category, there were about 10,880 received comments. An individual responses in the form of letters, Summary of Coded Comments document may contain from one to postcards and e-mails. Of these, 6,717 Comment letters were coded in order many separate comments. were form letters and 4,163 were not. to determine the following information:

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-snowplaneÐSnowplanes 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.

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 80952 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

One type of comment that was not snowmelt, and reservoir function scientific fact or public support. The included in the overall document count including flood control. Winter access is elimination of snowmobiles will only were e-mails received from an internet necessary to meet agency create greater congestion and safety polling site named ‘‘vote.com.’’ The e- responsibilities. problems in other popular locations mails that were received were the result U.S. Senate, Senator Michael B. Enzi outside the parks. The loss of the of an ongoing poll about snowmobile of Wyoming expresses deep concerns personal freedom to ride snowmobiles use. People responding to the poll were about how NPS has mishandled the into the parks is an irreversible and asked to vote a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ to the opportunity to provide clear direction irretrievable commitment of resources. question ‘‘Should snowmobiles be and a vision for management. He states The economic analysis presented in the banned from Yellowstone Park?’’ that NPS has chosen to proceed with a DEIS is flawed because the NPS failed Adjacent to the ‘‘yes’’ vote was the politically biased, predetermined to recognize the ‘‘Law of Dimensioning statement, ‘‘People could still take conclusion that excludes the Returns’’ (sic) (that the revenue winter tours in cleaner, quieter snow community and places the parks out of generated in the winter allows local coaches.’’ Adjacent to the ‘‘no’’ vote was reach for most Americans in the winter. businesses to stay open, covers the cost the statement, ‘‘Banning recreational Senator Enzi states that snowcoach of operations and keeps the community snowmobile users from the park would access only is infeasible for several alive.) None of the alternatives hurt local businesses.’’ The results were reasons, and that it is evident the presented in the FEIS are acceptable to 619 ‘‘yes’’ votes and 1970 ‘‘no’’ votes. snowmobile industry has available the State of Idaho. The State of Idaho There was some conflicting information technology to comply with any NPS strongly supports revised alternative E. concerning the privacy policy statement noise or emission standards NPS might The Honorable Colin B. Simpson, of ‘‘Vote.com.’’ The site states that the impose. He also states that NPS violated Wyoming State Legislature states that by vote is confidential, but the results NEPA and several other laws in this eliminating the preferred access for 60% received included the e-mail address of process. of current visitors, NPS is clearly acting each person voting. A comment was Donald A. Manzullo, U.S. House of in the biased interest of a minority of its also received expressing concern about Representatives, Committee on Small clients. He indicates the ban is the ‘‘Vote.com’’ comments. Business references testimony from the unreasonable and unsubstantiated, and July 13, 2000 hearing before the House agrees with the letter from Park County Summary of Individual Letter Contents Small Business Tax, Finance & Exports Commissioners (WY). Among other Federal Government, Tribal Subcommittee (The Impact of Banning statements in the letter are: adaptive Governments Snowmobiles Inside National Parks on management provisions could deny Small Business, Serial No. 106–68). He access to the park without due Comments on the FEIS were received states that NPS has ignored the main consideration of benefits and from: U.S. Environmental Protection thrust of the concerns expressed during enjoyment; negative economic impact Agency, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the DEIS public comment period by on gateway communities; and the FEIS The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Senator reiterating support for alternative G. He is flawed by not addressing economic Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming, and from feels that a snowcoach only system will feasibility of snowcoaches. Donald A. Manzullo of the U.S. House not work and that the economic impacts Governor Marc Racicot of Montana of Representatives’ Committee on Small from this alternative are large. would like thorough consideration of Business. the Montana Preferred Alternative that State Government, Agencies EPA has no environmental objections was submitted during the comment to the FEIS preferred alternative. EPA Comments were received from the period on the DEIS. Governor Racicot finds that the FEIS adequately discloses governors of the States of Idaho, was not satisfied with the NPS response the impacts of all alternatives, and is Montana and Wyoming, and from State to Montana’s alternative that was improved from the DEIS by adequately Senator Colin Simpson of Wyoming. All published in the FEIS. In addition, the responding to comments from EPA, three states were cooperating agencies Governor expresses the following: the other agencies and the public. in the effort. lack of effort to reach a broader The tribes recommend the Governor Kempthorne of Idaho consensus (by NPS); request for a implementation of Alternative F, citing attaches to his letter a note from Carl complete evaluation of the Montana the description of the alternative as Wilgus, cooperating agency alternative to be conducted and rationale. They further state that the representative from the State of Idaho, provided to them; request that the NPS trust obligations owed by the U.S. to stating that the NPS has ignored, include flexibility in Record of Decision American Indian tribes outweighs any discounted or minimized the good faith regarding cleaner and quieter commitment to snowmobilers or other input from the State of Idaho. Mr. snowmobile technology; and request recreationists , or to the states of Wilgus states that the NPS has that the NPS include flexibility with Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. They repeatedly missed deadlines and then regard to snowcoach only travel to plan feel that government to government unreasonably expected the cooperating for the possibility that the proposal will consultation was inadequate. agencies to comply with unreasonable not work. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation expresses deadlines. He states the NPS Governor Jim Geringer of Wyoming is concerns about the ongoing business, prematurely selected a preferred extremely disappointed in the NPS’s research, data collection and alternative before reviewing all of the failure to fully comply with the administrative travel necessary for BOR public comment on the DEIS. Among procedures outlined in the National to carry out its duties within the parks. the Governor’s comments are the Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). He They indicate the FEIS is unclear about following. The revised alternative E states the FEIS contains many the options BOR has for necessary submitted by the cooperating agencies information gaps, which are the result of travel, since most of the routes used by was not adequately considered by the an unrealistic timeframe and a flawed the agency are designated for NPS. The cooperating agencies were NEPA process. Wyoming does not snowcoach travel only, and that the denied representation on the support alternative G and indicates that agency must travel in the parks to identification (sic) team. The choice of the analysis presented in the FEIS does collect data necessary in forecasting alternative G is not grounded in either not support that alternative as a final

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80953 decision. Other concerns noted include: • Fremont County Board of • Leave the door open to all new the state was not adequately consulted Supervisors, Idaho, state: ‘‘Our greatest technological advances for snowmobiles and its information was ignored; cleaner concerns come from the unknown and allow them in the parks. quieter snowmobiles have an outcomes as a result of the FEIS. • The NPS has chosen to disregard appropriate role to play in the parks; Snowcoaches are the answer to all and misconstrue the input the NPS has failed to conduct a feasibility questions, according to alternative G, recommendations of the cooperating study of a mass transportation system to yet there is no plan for having clean and agencies. service all entrances; and the Record of quiet, or adequate numbers, of said • YNP was set aside as a preserve for Decision should include some type of vehicles in place in the proposed 3 recreational enjoyment and use, and escape clause or back-up plan to years.’’ should be continued to be managed guarantee public access in the event • with this intent. Gallatin County Commission, • snowcoaches fail to provide reliable Montana, states: ‘‘Generally we do not The economic impacts of service from all entrances. The Governor find that the analysis and information eliminating snowmobiles will be indicates support for adaptive devastating. that you use supports the preferred • management including the utilization of alternative. We base our concerns on Over regulation by the federal cleaner and quieter snow machines in inconsistencies between your statement government has been the demise of the parks, as they are developed and of desired conditions, the data you many industries. • NPS does not discuss or notes there are currently no emission or provide, the criteria developed by the acknowledge the existence of current sound standards for snowcoaches. He park service and a departure from the snowmobile technology that would help states that NPS will continue to use criteria developed at Idaho Falls in snowmobiles, and only when the NPS solve the problem. October 1998.’’ Much of the letter • The counties strongly disagree with adopts coach only travel will it be fair quotes liberally from the Draft EIS to to impose it on others. the characterization of how the support their comments. alternatives were formulated; banning • Local Government Agencies Teton County Historic Preservation snowmobiles goes far beyond what was Board, Wyoming, indicates the board’s Comments were received from agreed to. consensus is supportive of preferred • commissioners of: Park and Gallatin Alternative G eliminates conflicts, alternative G. Counties, Montana; Park, Fremont and but at the expense of an entire user Teton Counties, Wyoming; and Teton Common themes in all letters from the group. It appears the resources could be and Fremont Counties, Idaho. A counties include the following: protected and conflicts minimized • comment was also submitted by the The preferred alternative has no while accommodating all user groups. • Teton County (WY) Historic basis in scientific fact. Instead of There is much doubt about the Preservation Board. Five counties were resolving issues that forced the feasibility of going to snowcoaches only, cooperating agencies in the effort. development of the EIS, the NPS has and how this affects other users and The counties’ general responses to the opened the door to further litigation. commercial operators. A feasibility FEIS preferred alternative are: • Alternative G still provides for the analysis should have been done. • • Park County Commissioners, administrative use of snowmobiles by The majority of winter visitors have Montana, express their total employees living in the interior of told you that your preferred alternative dissatisfaction with the FEIS. The Yellowstone. This is a glaring is the one they prefer the least. • timeline was unacceptable and the NPS contradiction. We challenge NPS to demonstrate has failed to comply with NEPA and its • The NPS made changes to the how they’ve been cooperative and how procedural requirements. schedule without consultation or the cooperation is consistent with the • Fremont County, Wyoming states consent of the cooperating agencies. preferred alternative. that ‘‘the winter use plan you are • The counties have repeatedly Environmental Groups planning to implement is unjust, and documented how delays in providing Comments were received from groups based on politics and emotions rather information and modeling data have than science.’’ or from individuals identifying • precluded the counties from fulfilling themselves as speaking in behalf of a Park County, Wyoming implores their obligations. NPS to change its decision from the group. Comments were received from • NPS reversed its decision to allow the following groups. preferred alternative in the FEIS. the cooperating agencies to participate • • Teton County Board of Jefferson County Environmental on the FEIS planning team. Network, Lakemills, Wisconsin Commissioners, Wyoming, believes the • • selected preferred alternative did not The alternatives workshop in which Predator Conservation Alliance, receive adequate analysis and continues the counties participated did not Bozeman, Montana • Blue Water Network, San Francisco, to be disappointed in how the NEPA provide them with the opportunity to California process was used in the development of provide meaningful input. • • American Lands Alliance, the winter use plans. Teton County The FEIS ignores the utility of setting an overall carrying capacity for Washington D.C. initiated the ‘‘Clean Snowmobile • Wildlands Center for Preventing Challenge’’, whose results indicate there visitors. • Roads, Boulder, Colorado are feasible ways to create a clean, quiet The FEIS ignores the utility of • Aspen Wilderness Workshop, machine. setting an overall carrying capacity for Aspen, Colorado • Teton County Commissioners, wildlife. • Native Forest Network, Bozeman, • Idaho, cannot support the preferred The cooperating agencies do not Montana alternative G, stating the only support the incorporation of individual • Wyoming Chapter of the Sierra alternative they can support is A, no elements of the revised alternative E Club, Jackson, Wyoming action. They note agreement with into the FEIS. The revised alternative E • Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Fremont County ID in declaring that the as submitted by the counties was not Bozeman, Montana Reclamation Road is an RS2477 intended to be dissected and is only • Schubert and Associates, Glendale, highway and is under local jurisdiction. effective if incorporated as a whole. Arizona

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 80954 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

• The Ecology Center, Inc., Missoula, • Implementation of a snowcoach • There are no regulations permitting Montana system represents benefits that far road grooming or snowcoach operation. Comments from these groups fall into exceed those raised in the FEIS. • FEIS failed to properly analyze the several categories. Some groups express • NPS can be a catalyst for innovation adverse impact of road grooming on support for Alternative G. Some groups in snowcoach technology. bison. give qualified support to the alternative. • Snowcoach transport should be • NPS failed to properly consider and Others express support for eliminating attractive for visitors and fit the unique respond to several issues raised in snowmobiles, but also see the need to winter setting of the parks. NPS should comments on the DEIS. • eliminate any groomed trails and determine the best design for this The FEIS range of alternatives is motorized oversnow use in the parks. purpose and include current inadequate, based on the settlement Most groups that support Alternative manufacturers, purchasers and clientele agreement as mandated by the judge. served by existing snowcoaches. • Many of the analysis points raised G indicate that snowmobiles should be • removed from the parks sooner than 3 A transition task force should be in the FEIS actually affirm the convened—composed of NPS, affected contentions in the lawsuit. years if at all possible. They state that • there is broad public support for businesses and concessioners, local Reserves the right to participate in eliminating snowmobiles in parks, and officials and environmental groups. further litigation. • NPS should initiate education and are optimistic about elements in the Business Community, Including Park outreach to assist in the marketing of business community that welcome new winter recreation opportunities, to Concessioners snowcoach transport. Other related the benefit of gateway economies. Comments were received from groups comments are: • • NPS should investigate programs or from individuals identifying Snowmobilers have been given too and funding strategies to facilitate the themselves as speaking in behalf of a much time to ‘‘develop their rights.’’ • creation of a snowcoach mass-transit group. Comments were received from There is no right to engage in a system, and affected local businesses the following groups. noncomforming use. • Riverton Community Development • should be given initial preference in the NPS should better lay out its plan new system. Association, Riverton, Wyoming. for transition to snowcoach only. Those who express qualified support • Pahaska Tepee Resort, Cody, • Snowmobiles should be removed at state that the preferred alternative is an Wyoming. the soonest time possible. Three year improvement over current management. • International Leisure Hosts, Ltd., ‘‘phase-in’’ is unacceptable due to They indicate: dba Flagg Ranch Resort, Tempe, continuing impacts of noise, wildlife • Pleased that the plan replaces Arizona. harassment, air pollution, and visitor snowmobile use with snowcoaches. • Cody Chamber of Commerce, Cody, disruption. • Snowmobiles affect air, water, Wyoming. • Continued snowmobile use needs to sound, visitor experience, wildlife, and • Jackson Hole Chamber of be brought into compliance with laws. bison movement. Commerce, Jackson, Wyoming. • Snowmobile ban in the parks will • Snowcoach use would continue to • West, South and East Gate not affect the snowmobile industry. facilitate bison leaving the park in the Operators, YNP, West Yellowstone, • Community business leaders winter. Winter use should only be Flagg Ranch, Pahaska Tepee. allowed to the extent that it doesn’t • Mattracks Inc., Karlstad, Minnesota. recognize there could be benefits of a • snowmobile ban. have this impact. Mr. David McCray, Two Top • There are many places outside the • Would prefer alternative F in the Snowmobile Rental, West Yellowstone, DEIS, along with closure of YNP’s east Montana. parks that provide snowmobiling • opportunities. entrance. Mr. F.W. Howell, Yellowstone • There is broad public support for Those who do not support the Arctic Yamaha, West Yellowstone, eliminating snowmobiles from parks. preferred alternative also generally Montana. • Mr. Pat Povah, Hamilton Stores, • Sen. Thomas’ solution of separating express the idea that the ‘‘decision’’ is probably the only legal recourse for NPS Yellowstone, Wyoming. snowmobilers and skiers is inadequate • Mr. Randy Roberson, Yellowstone because it doesn’t address because of its mandate. They note that, while the plans represent an Vacations, West Yellowstone, Montana. environmental impacts or noise. Comments from most groups • Snowmobilers disregard improvement over current management, concerns remain. Replacing expressed firm opposition to alternative regulations, disrupting the integrity of G. Some continue to express strong wilderness and wildlife habitat. snowmobiles with snowcoaches also should not be permitted. They indicate: support for revised alternative E, and • Changes will decrease noise, • The parks wildlife and ecosystem believe as stated in previous comments polluted air stresses to wildlife, and will continue to suffer from groomed that E would meet the purpose and need offer visitors a quality experience. for action. Statements from this body of • routes for snowcoaches. Any trail grooming should still be • Continued snowmobile use has comment include: done without conflicts with important unacceptable impacts and they should • Closing YNP to public wildlife habitat. snowmobiling will shift use to other • be removed immediately. The decision should also close • NPS has no legal mandate to public lands, and result in impacts on YNP’s east entrance and eliminate the provide motorized access. them. use of military ordinance. • The Biological Assessment fails to • Alternative E is acceptable if the • Interpretation, information and consider the impacts of road grooming advisory groups are not packed with education should be emphasized in on federally listed species. anti-multiple use advocates. winter management. • The FEIS is deficient. • Actions of the federal government • NPS risks violation of statutes, • A complete ban on groomed routes to eliminate access to most of the area regulations and executive orders. The and termination of all oversnow in the county destroys our means of ROD should express the role of motorized use should have been making a living. monitoring and that violations would be considered in the EIS (a ‘‘true no-action • Object to portions of the plan that cause to halt offending uses. alternative). limit or eliminate access or types of

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices 80955 access to the parks. This includes • If snowmobiles must be banned, levels of snowcoaches. These vehicles snowcoach only access, adaptive plow the road and use buses instead. have a less aggressive track and may management, NPS managed The ‘‘West, South and East Gate also run of pavement without causing snowcoaches, controlled stops in the Operators’’, YNP, West Yellowstone, damage. parks, and limited to no access at the Flagg Ranch, Pahaska Tepee corporately • Snowcoaches should be of a single east entrance of YNP. submitted a letter, stating that inclusive enclosure (no trailers with • Object to portions of the plan that Alternative G will deny rather than passengers). have a negative economic impact on provide access to the visiting public. Snowmobile or Snowcoach Industry, gateway communities—eliminating The express the right of the public to Advocates snowmobiles takes away the preferred enjoy the park is of paramount mode of travel for 60% of YNPs historic Comments were received from: importance, second only to protecting • visitors. the park for the future. Other statements Birch, Horton, Bittner and Cherot • Object to portions of the plan that include: and William P. Horn, Attorneys for the allow administrative snowmobile use, • Enjoyment of snowcoach travel International Snowmobile that ignores safety concerns relative to Manufacturers Association. vastly diminishes after 90 miles. The • snowcoaches, ignores inconvenience of alternative eliminates enjoyment of Mr. Virgil Koehler, American snowcoaches, ignores other technical travel to a number of popular places in Council of Snowmobiles. • Utah Snowmobile Association, Salt difficulties with implementing the the park. alternative. • Flagg Ranch stipulates that the Lake City, Utah. • Idaho State Snowmobile • ‘‘Snowcoaches only’’ is not alternative would eliminate access from financially feasible for a number of Association, Boise, Idaho. the south. If the road to Flagg Ranch is • Ms. Adena Cook, Public Lands reasons. not plowed, the ranch will not open in • Director, Blue Ribbon Coalition, Idaho The FEIS fails to adequately analyze the winter and it will not be a the effects of increased snow coach Falls, Idaho. destination. • Ms. Beth Walsh, Moran, Wyoming. operations on air quality, wildlife, the • From Pahaska, the only possible • NPS budget, visitor demographics and Mr. Jim Gerber, St. Anthony, Idaho. destination within the 90 mile All comments in this group are the economy. enjoyment level would be the Grand • If numbers are a concern, we opposed to the selection of alternative Canyon of the Yellowstone. Also G. Some support the implementation of believe that all alternatives have a snowcoaches over Sylvan are not provision for establishing carrying a revised alternative E but indicate that advisable due to safety concerns. since this alternative was not included capacities. • • Other objections to snowcoaches in the FEIS their support is given to Concerned that the interim use only are: Insufficient speed, safety, limits, if implemented this year, would alternative A, the no action alternative. inadequate technology, capital Reasons for opposition to the prohibit fulfilling existing reservations. investment necessary, mode of travel is • Because of the greater mileage most implementation of alternative G in the not cheaper (than snowmobiles), the people would come to West parks for the following reasons: public prefers snowmobiles, and it • Yellowstone, causing even greater A 21 day review period is would be devastating to the economy. unacceptable for such a dramatic change congestion there. • • Snowcoach travel is too slow and The burden is on NPS to conduct a in alternative preference. feasibility study of the alternative. • The expertise of a significant cross too uncomfortable. • • Increasing snowcoaches will cause Flagg Ranch cannot be a destination section of professionals (cooperating greater safety hazards. More people resort without a plowed road to it. The agencies) has been totally ignored. • would be hurt in a single accident. contract requires the plowed road. NPS The snowmobile industry has made • Snowcoaches are too expensive, 20 assured Flagg Ranch that its contract many improvements in technology since snowcoaches would cost 1,400,000 a would be honored. 1970. • • year and would sit idle for 9 months. Interim snowmobile limits will The benefit of snowcoach travel in • Cleaner and quieter snowmobiles limit the ranch’s ability to operate. This the parks is pure conjecture. is also a breach of contract. • The misuse and abuse of the NEPA are available for purchase. • • The implementation of alternative Elimination of snowmobiles is a process in preparation of this FEIS is G will result in devastating economic breach of the contract, which doesn’t appalling. expire until 2009. • The FEIS was crafted to support a effects. • • From the east gate the only Not plowing the road from Colter decision made in Washington D.C. desirable destination would be Canyon Bay to Flagg Ranch would make all of requiring significant shifts from the • Mechanical breakdowns Yellowstone inaccessible to those who DEIS alternatives. (snowcoaches) would keep visitors have traditionally entered from the • The FEIS fails to utilize waiting in the cold until help arrives. south entrance. constructive It would drastically reduce • The increased speed and number of Mattracks Inc., Karlstad, Minnesota, is winter recreation use and enjoyment in snowcoaches would increase safety the only respondent in this group to derogation of the acts creating hazards. support the selection of alternative G as Yellowstone National Park and the • The preferred alternative and the the preferred alternative and offers the national park system. FEIS are biased against snowmobiles. following implementation suggestions: • Alternative G was concocted after • In order to accommodate current • Suggests a passenger capacity of 6 the fact and the NPS has not allowed the use levels there would be lines of to 15. A smaller vehicle does not public sufficient time to explore the snowcoaches at the entrance gates. achieve mass transit goals and larger plan and register informed comments. • Snowcoaches have a 10% vehicles may cause damage to resources. • Alternative G would violate existing breakdown rate—who would retrieve • The NPS should implement EPA concessions contracts—(Flagg Ranch in them? emission standards for snowcoaches. particular). • The parking and storage • The NPS should require the use of • Alternative G would have requirements for the snowcoaches rubber tracked vehicles instead of metal devastating effects on the economies would be space and cost prohibitive. or cleated tracks to reduce the sound local communities.

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1 80956 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Notices

• Snowmobiles produced after 1976 the facilities at Flagg Ranch are remains, physical characteristics that emit no more than 73 dB(A) at 15 MPH currently under utilized. identify them as Native American, when tested using SAE J1161. • Construction new winter facilities published accounts of the traditional • Several studies are cited that at Colter Bay would negatively effect territory of the Mashantucket Pequot indicate that deer are more likely to lynx habitat. Tribe, and historical information move away from ski trails than • If the park service does not plow provided by the Mashantucket Pequot snowmobile trails and that they are the road from Colter to Flagg it will Tribe. Historical documents indicate unaffected by snowmobile traffic. result in longer EMS response times. that the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe has • A University of Wisconsin study [FR Doc. 00–30998 Filed 12–21–00; 8:45 am] occupied the area where the remains found that snowmobile traffic has no were recovered since the Late Woodland effect on the grain yield of winter wheat. BILLING CODE 4310±01±P period, circa A.D. 1000. • Six of the seven alternatives offered In 1874, human remains representing in the FEIS provide almost no range of DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR three individuals were donated to the proposals that could possibly be Peabody Museum of Natural History by considered as conscientious multiple National Park Service Mrs. E. O. Dunning. The remains were use management of public lands. recovered near Mystic, CT. No known • The change in the preferred Notice of Inventory Completion for individuals were identified. The one alternative from ‘‘B’’ to ‘‘G’’ without Native American Human Remains and associated funerary object is a metal allowing the public to comment proves Associated Funerary Objects from spoon. that land managers are only listening to Connecticut in the Possession of the Based on the documentary evidence, the well-funded voices of the minority Peabody Museum of Natural History, examination of the human remains, and extreme advocacy groups. Yale University, New Haven, CT consultation with representatives of the • Comments submitted by ISSA, and Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, these the state of Wyoming. AGENCY: National Park Service individuals are identified as Native • The FEIS exaggerates the ACTION: Notice. American. The remains and the spoon environmental effects of snowmobiles. • probably date to the period of Euro- The economic analysis presented in Notice is hereby given in accordance American contact. Cultural affiliation the FEIS is superficial and inadequate. with provisions of the Native American • has been determined on the basis of The FEIS fails to adequately define Graves Protection and Repatriation Act geographic origin of the remains, what would constitute acceptable (NAGPRA), 43 CFR 10.9, of the physical characteristics that identify impacts from snowmobiles. completion of an inventory of human them as Native American, published • Revised alternative E was not remains and associated funerary objects accounts of the traditional territory of seriously considered. in the possession of the Peabody the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, and • The FEIS version of the ‘‘Existing Museum of Natural History, Yale historical information provided by the Condition’’ and ‘‘Desired Condition’’ University, New Haven, CT. Mashantucket Pequot Tribe. Historical was significantly altered from the This notice is published as part of the documents indicate that the version in the DEIS. National Park Service’s administrative • Alternative G is totally new and has Mashantucket Pequot Tribe has responsibilities under NAGPRA, 43 CFR occupied the area where the remains not been validated by the public. 10.2 (c). The determinations within this • The NPS has manipulated visitor were recovered since the Late Woodland notice are the sole responsibility of the period, circa A.D. 1000. use numbers to serve its own purposes. museum, institution, or Federal agency • The FEIS describes natural In 1948, human remains representing that has control of these Native soundscapes as a resource not a value. one individual was donated to the • The Duffield study is pure American human remains and Peabody Museum of Natural History by conjecture, the FEIS should have associated funerary objects. The Eva Butler. The remains were recovered incorporated the more factual State of National Park Service is not responsible near Groton, CT, on the property of the Wyoming study. for the determinations within this Spicer Ice and Coal Co. during • Additional information in the FEIS notice. excavation for a drain. No known on social values, soundscapes and A detailed assessment of the human individual was identified. No associated emissions need validation before any remains and associated funerary objects funerary objects are present. conclusions can be reached. was made by Peabody Museum of Based on the documentary evidence, • The NPS was arbitrary and Natural History professional staff in examination of the human remains, and capricious in its decision to ban consultation with representatives of the consultation with representatives of the snowmobiles and require snowcoaches Mashantucket Pequot Tribe. Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, this instead. In 1873, human remains representing individual is identified as Native • The analysis of water quality for one individual were donated to the American. The remains appear to be alternatives A through F states that there Peabody Museum of Natural History by prehistoric or protohistoric in age. is no evidence of measurable changes in J. D. Fish. The remains were recovered Cultural affiliation has been determined water quality from snowmobile near Mystic, CT. No known individual on the basis of geographic origin of the emissions yet in alternative G the FEIS was identified. No associated funerary remains, physical characteristics that concludes that alternative G addresses objects are present. identify them as Native American, the issue of water quality better than Based on the documentary evidence, published accounts of the traditional other alternatives. examination of the human remains, and territory of the Mashantucket Pequot • Snowcoaches will result in a loss of consultation with representatives of the Tribe, and historical information personal freedom and a poor experience Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, this provided by the Mashantucket Pequot in the parks. individual is identified as Native Tribe. Historical documents indicate • Snowcoaches will be cost American. The remains appear to be that the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe has prohibitive for many. prehistoric or protohistoric in age. occupied the area where the remains • Constructing new winter facilities Cultural affiliation has been determined were recovered since the Late Woodland at Colter Bay makes no sense because on the basis of geographic origin of the period, circa A.D. 1000.

VerDate 112000 18:47 Dec 21, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 22DEN1