THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display

[Page: S4054]  GPO's PDF
---

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, in recent years, some of my colleagues have opposed elevating the Environmental Protection Agency to Cabinet-level status. You and I have argued that the protection of our public health and environment, EPA's mandate, is as important as the congressional mandates which guide other Cabinet-level agencies. If the EPA enjoyed the same status as the Department of Energy or the Interior Department, maybe EPA's policies would carry the day occasionally.

   As things stand, EPA is certainly losing the battle within this administration from clean air to climate change to snowmobiles in our national parks. EPA's views are overridden, undervalued, and watered down.

   Take the issue of snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. I have spoken about these issues before. I have offered amendments that have been adopted in this regard. Snowmobiling in Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton National Park has become popular in recent years; so popular, in fact, that the activities overwhelm the parks, its employees, and its wildlife.

   Up to 1,000 snowmobilers enter the Yellowstone Park on winter weekends, most of them through the gateway community of West Yellowstone, MT. On steel cold days, a visible haze hangs over the park's gate and surrounding area. Rangers at this park wore Park Service-issued respirators this winter because the air quality had been so degraded by emissions from snowmobile engines.

   I repeat, park rangers at Yellowstone National Park wore respirators because the air was so bad because of snowmobiles. These respirators were issued by the Park Service.

   What have we come to when rangers have to wear a respirator

   in our national parks? At the very least, it is an embarrassment. I think it is a tragedy.

   EPA, the protector of the air we breathe, wisely advocated banning snowmobiles due to their air quality impacts, but those were not the only impacts EPA raised. Snowmobiles also

[Page: S4055]  GPO's PDF

   The National Park Service studied the snowmobiles' impact on the parks for the better part of 10 years, receiving hundreds of thousands of public comments on this subject. The comment included those from the EPA. As I have said, EPA recommended a ban based on air quality concerns.

   In November of 2000, the Park Service ordered the snowmobiles be gradually phased out in Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton National Park and the 8-mile road connecting the two.

   By the year 2004, snowmobiles would be banned completely from these parks. With so many proconservation Clinton-era policies, the Bush administration balked at implementing this rule. With the snowmobile industry in mind, rather than the millions of Americans who visit our parks, the White House ordered the Park Service to restudy the impact of snowmobiles on park resources.

   The writing was on the wall that this administration expected the Park Service to reach a different conclusion when it reexamined the data. Perhaps they hoped the evidence would support the position they favored, some sort of a faith-based approach to science.

   As part of the new review, EPA had the integrity and the courage to stick to the position it held throughout the history of this debate. I commend Governor Whitman for that.

   In its public comments, EPA repeated the assertion from 3 years ago that banning snowmobiles is the best available protection for air quality and health of workers and visitors alike. EPA said even a limited number of snowmobiles may violate air quality standards.

   I ask unanimous consent that the comments of the Environmental Protection Agency to the Assistant Superintendent at Grand Teton National Park setting out their position be printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

   AGENCY, REGION VIII,

   Denver, CO, April 23, 2002.
Re Draft supplemental EIS for winter use CEQ #020130.

STEVEN F. IOBST,
Assistant Superintendent, Grand Teton National Park, Moose, WY.

   DEAR MR. IOBST: As a Cooperating Agency in the Supplemental Winter Use Planning Process, and in accordance with our responsibilities under the corresponding Memorandum of Agreement with the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for Winter Use Plans at Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway (the Parks). We provide the following comments to assist NPS in producing a document that meets the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the terms of the Settlement Agreement that led to this Supplement. These comments are provided in accordance with EPA's responsibilities under NEPA and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, and we hope they will be useful to you as you complete this supplemental analysis.

   EPA thanks the NPS for the opportunity to participate in this SEIS as a Cooperating Agency. NPS has again fully involved the Cooperating Agencies at every point in this process. NPS was extremely responsive to the Cooperating Agencies, and we appreciate the almost weekly opportunity to provide input and ask questions. We also appreciate NPS' efforts to fully evaluate and utilize applicable information and input from the Cooperators. While the Settlement Agreement set a very tight time frame for this analysis, and though NPS received much of the new information much later than expected, the NPS planning and analysis team is to be commended for doing a remarkable job in assembling this DSEIS.

   This DSEIS amends the Final Winter Use EIS (FEIS) issued in October, 2000. The two primary purposes of the DSEIS are as follows: (1) to solicit more public input, and (2) to include data from new snowmobile technology and other new information. This DSEIS analyzes four alternatives that fall within the range of those alternatives presented in the FEIS.

   Alternative 1a represents the November 2000 Record of Decision (ROD), fully phasing in he transfer of motorized access to snowcoaches by 2003-2004. The existing ROD implements FEIS Alternative G with minor modifications.

   Alternative 1b is identical to 1a except implementation is extended one additional year, with full implementation in 2004-2005.

   Alternative 2, at full implementation, requires 50 percent lower emissions on all snowmobiles, and caps snowmobiles in Yellowstone at 1,300/day pending a carrying capacity analysis.

   Alternative 3, at a full implementation, requires ``best available technology'' for reducing emissions and noise for all snowmobiles entering the Parks, and all snowmobiles would be accompanied by a NPS licensed guide. Alternative 3 caps use in Yellowstone at 930 snowmobiles per day until a carrying capacity analysis is completed.

   EPA fully supports continued winter access to these National Parks. Given the analysis presented in the DSEIS, EPA is satisfied that if applicable regulation, law, and federal policy are followed. Park resources can be protected while maintaining motorized winter access to these Parks. While this comment letter will suggest some adjustments and additional analyses, EPA finds the Park Service again used the best-available information, scientific analyses, expert agency comment, and public input in assembling both the DSEIS and FEIS (as required by 40 CFR 1500.1(b)). The assessment of impacts in the DSEIS and FEIS is supported by an extremely thorough and credible body of human health, environmental, and wildlife science, much of which is site-specific to the Yellowstone ecosystem. NPS, academic and agency researchers have actively studied the impacts of snowmobile use for over 10 years in these Parks. The Yellowstone ecosystem has the benefit of more peer-reviewed scientific research on the effects of motorized winter recreation than any other place on earth.

   EPA's primary concern with this supplemental analysis is that three of the four DSEIS alternatives (1b, 2 and 3) threaten to exceed National or Montana Ambient Air Quality Standards for carbon monoxide in the first year of implementation (2002-2003). NPS has the ability, information and authority to set interim limits to vehicle numbers that would assure compliance with Air Quality Standards. EPA encourages interim vehicle limits be sufficiently reduced in the FSEIS to assure compliance with these standards. Although complying with Air Quality Standards does not assure elimination of the impairment to visibility of human health caused by vehicle exhaust, it is an achievable first step toward resolving the impaired air quality in these Parks.

   In November, 2000, NPS issued a Record of Decision (ROD) that resolved the winter-use threat to National and State air Quality Standards as well as the significant impairments to human health, visibility, wildlife and soundscapes. This remedy was to being with actions taken this past winter (2001-2002), with full implementation in 2003-04. EPA recently learned that some actions required by the ROD to reduce impacts to air quality this past winter were not implemented. The ROD is an active policy document and represents an agreement with the public for managing winter use in these Parks. EPA is concerned that air quality, human health and visibility continued to be impaired this past season. As discussed in our enclosed Detailed Comments, EPA is suggesting that interim limits be adjusted in each of the SEIS alternatives to assure compliance with air quality standards beginning this coming season (2002-2003).

   Environmentally preferred alternative

   EPA has carefully considered the new information, analysis and alternatives presented in the DSEIS, and we find FEIS Alternative G remains the environmentally preferred alternative. The analysis presented in this EIS clearly indicates FEIS Alternative G would provide the best available protection to human health, wildlife, air quality, water quality, soundscapes, visitor experiences, and visibility while maintaining motorized and non-motorized winter access to these Parks. We are confident that Alternative G will fully comply with all applicable environmental regulations, policy and Executive Orders. EPA has no objections to this alternative.

   EPA rating

   Based primarily on the disclosure in this DSEIS that Alternatives 1b, 2 and 3 would likely result in noncompliance with air quality standards and that air quality could negatively impact human health, EPA is rating these three action alternatives EO-2 (Environmental Objections, 2--Insufficient Information). Alternatives 2 and 3 are likely to be inconsistent with NPS environmental policy regarding protection of air quality and related values. ``EO-2'' indicates that the EPA review has identified environmental impacts including possible violation of environmental regulations that can and should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the alternatives or consideration of additional project alternatives. The identified additional information, data, analyses or discussion should be included in the Final SEIS (FSEIS). While Alternatives 1b, 2 and 3 all receive the same EO-2 rating, EPA notes that there are substantial differences in environmental performance between these alternatives (see enclosed Detailed Comments). EPA finds no environmental objection to the No Action Alternative (1a). A full description of EPA's EIS rating system is enclosed.

   Because the decision maker can select from among alternatives in both the DSEIS and the FEIS, EPA is providing a brief assessment of the alternatives in the FEIS as

[Page: S4056]  GPO's PDF

   We appreciate the opportunity to review this DSEIS and provide comments. A set of detailed comments on the DSEIS is enclosed. Thank you for your willingness to consider our comments at this stage of the process, and we hope they will be useful to you. Should you have questions regarding these comments, please contact Phil Strobel of my staff.

   Sincerely,
MAX H. DODSON,

   Assistant Regional Administrator for
Ecosystems Protection and Remediation.

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is important to print this in the RECORD because the administration had already signaled it expected the EPA to again sacrifice its own best scientific judgment to the political will of special interests. Again, the administration is signaling that the agency views will not be afforded weight.

   When the comments were revealed this past weekend, Administrator Whitman immediately came under fire to repudiate the longstanding policy of the EPA. While they have not gotten that for yet, EPA immediately instituted new policy designed to ensure that its views were in line with Cabinet-level counterparts. Perhaps elevating EPA to a Cabinet-level department would begin to change the outcome of these cases and elevate the importance of environmental protection to this administration. In this case, it is critically important that EPA and their views prevail.

   I ask Governor Whitman to stand strong. Yellowstone and Grand Teton are national treasures. People visit from all over the world in all seasons to see Old Faithful and the Grand Teton range.

   As I have said here before and other places, snowmobiling is an important form of recreation for many Americans. I snowmobile, and it is a lot of fun. Thousands of Nevadans snowmobile. But banning these vehicles from Yellowstone and Grand Teton will have almost no impact on the opportunities open to snowmobilers around this country.

   There are 130,000 miles of snowmobile trails in the United States. These two national parks have a combined total of 600 miles. If the Park Service bans snowmobiles from these places, there will still be 129,400 miles of trail for snowmobilers.

   I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the value of the Environmental Protection Agency. To the administration, I hope they will join me in recognizing the value of our national parks and the need to preserve these wonderful national treasures of which Nevada has one, the Great Basin National Park, and it is a beauty. The Great Basin National Park is the second newest. We have a mountain peak that is about 13,000 feet high, but yet below that the park has some of the desert foliage. It represents everything in the Great Basin.

   In addition to that, the park has the oldest living attractions in the world in it, such as bristle corn pines more than 5,000 years old. So it is one of our great national parks.

   I have talked about two national parks today that I am particularly concerned about and hope we do not have snowmobiles rushing through there and we do not see park rangers with their Smokey the Bear hats with a respirator.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display