Table Of Content

WINTER USE PLANS FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT VOLUME III PART I for the Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Jool-00945/NF CL CONTENTS eT i Part |, Representative Government, Cooperator, Organization, and Individual Comments and Responses U.S. Congress Ce 1-1 I a aeeceeree rnc cea titan aartneritaiamanieaaaeinaeaaataasatememnmeititaanenee 1-3 ET CT TE EST 1-7 Federal Agencies a ee I-11 United States Environmental Protection Agency ......0.s0ssssssssssvssssrsssssesessssescessosssesseresseveresverensensenseeseeees 1-19 American Indian Tribes Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation ................cc0cssessssseseseeeeereeeeeneneeneen 1-24 States EEE 1-28 ETT ETE 1-33 I TTT ET 1-74 Wyoming State Representative, Charles P. Childers ............:ssssssssssesesessseseseseeseereeeseseereneeeeeeeeenensesenes 1-108 Counties Fremont County Parks, Recreation, Waterways COMmMisSiON...................000s00+seseeseesesesessesereneeeeesenvenees 1-112 | an 1-114 Gallatin County Commissioner, Bill Murdock ............0sssssssssssssssssssseveresssereevessoesessesesseessesevesseseevensenes 1-120 CS TTT EEE 1-123 CE 1-125 CS 1-129 Paul Kruse, Representative of Cooperating Counties ...............ccccscsesssssesseceseseeeeeeeneeeseseseecsensseseneenenses 1-334 Organizations Te 1-133 EE 1-142 CC Ee 1-148 EE 1-153 CE ET 1-161 SPIT, 1s rccrrenenocennnennnnegnennenentanennemnenannnenantstamenemaneaneatanesteneneenteaauantets 1-164 ae 1-169 BE 1-202 ES EE 1-205 National Parks and Conservation Association .................:csscssesesessesesesessessssscesssesesssesesessscssevevesenssasenses 1-226 ge ra 1-229 Sn rITTITTITTTTTT TTT nrc nennccnenpnenntonenannndnnnentonsnaneneneensnanstennnensetenenecnsnebetnanencesnstecssentnnnennanen 1-233 STITT corner nrcaenenaneneceqnenenenbeenseennnannenenesenesenceninnnan: enenennenenneanenteenenesennentnnte 1-236 Sean GTI wcsssscnsresnnctnetinnncentennnenscenvencnemnerepennensnennsessenentnexsssnenessorenneneneneennsetanessoneeennnstnensedee 1-241 cn snn srenen ncrnnnennnngnnnnnnnnnnbonencnneneanennnnnnenneenennnensnaneinients 1-285 Yellowstone Ecosystem Task Force of the Sierra Club ..0..0.........ccccccesscsesessseesescescescesescscssssescssecceneeeens 1-289 Ee crnccesssce---c e xeenenunnseneeapsnnennneeneennnecnseneeneennoeneneuneennenntettnevenennnnnneeennei en 1-298 Individuals EE 1-300 TEI TEI GID. sesrnesesnncnnemennnnnterneseneneenasenmnsenounsnnsennsonsunennanmnnenemsemenrenetaresnesteneansneneanenenennneinans 1-305 CITI srtesensnpemrnenetecensectennensentpeninsennerentenunmnentneneennntesnentenettnnnenneneentmemeneenieetennmennnmnmmnnnnen 1-316 ITI tetteirnarnenteenentnnetcnnnestetnnntiehenmnemnenmnennaentenegnenneneennteneemnueetetietaannttttatetnenenainetaeeeNaNneee 1-319 OO EE 1-324 en cen erececncerecnennenmmrerneninnntentaneneennenntnnnenneencqumnenenesnetnenemenetenenecenennents 1-330 SETTEITricetnecseethnnentintenetatenenenennnsheanendiinnesennmebemieemnennnenessnenenenineetnsneteupecietinnentneninnennatens 1-348 rit enererenctinetenteetnancnanienes cenenenenennenatnennentenenmnanensstanascncenenecenteneusseinsenenetbneennestesentencstencnansents 1-350 I EE 1-355 EE 1-366 EEE 1-372 On 1-375 INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME III Volume III includes public comments and corresponding NPS responses and is separated into three parts. Part I includes representative government, cooperator, organization, and individual comments and responses. Part I includes form letter comments and responses. The NPS responded directly to all comments in the letters found in Parts I and II. Part II] is a summary of comments and responses by subject category. The comments in Part III differ markedly from those in Parts I and III in that they are a summary of the 500,000 comments received on the DEIS. Because of the voluminous nature of the DEIS comments, many of the comments were categorized by subject and then summarized. Accordingly, the responses included in Part III are summary responses. Where possible, the NPS included the actual wording of the comment in the summary comment. Part III is divided into two sections, one that includes impact topics and the other that relates to the NEPA process. Impact Topics : e Adjacent Lands e Species of Special e Alternative Features Air Quality Concern e General Expressions Bison and Other e Threatened and of Concern Ungulates Endangered Species ¢ Impact Topics e Cultural Resources e Vegetation Dismissed ¢ Geothermal Habitats e Visitor Access and e NEPA Process e Natural Quiet Circulation e Purpose and Need e Natural Resources e Visitor Experience e Public Health e Water and Aquatic ° Resources ° = e Wildlife SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DEIS This is a summary of the public comments received for the Winter Use Plans/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway. The National Park Service (NPS) received comments from across the United States, Canada, and as far away as Germany, Saudi Arabia, and Japan. Most comments came from Rocky Mountain and Northwest States. - —— a ; Comment Documents by Type | | | Total form | _— letters 87% Telephone | comment sheet——__ 1% | 4 ~ - | email .~ Public meeting ~~_ Individual letter | Comment — of comment 5% | | sheet —~ 5 % + % | 1% The NPS received about 46,500 documents commenting on the DEIS — 6,300 unique documents and 40,200 form documents. The unique documents contained over 19,700 - a comments. Most documents (87%) were form Documents by Source documents from individuals. The remaining documents were from telephone calls, NPS Public at comment sheets, e-mails, and public meeting + 99% transcriptions. Commentors included businesses, private and non- All other ~~ profit organizations, local state, tribal, and federal government agencies, and the public-at-large, which constituted 99% of the total commentors. nem Five new alternatives were submitted by non-profit organizations or government agencies outside of the NPS - The “Natural Regulation Alternative” submitted by The Fund for Animals The “Citizens’ Solution” submitted by the Greater Yellowstone Coalition et al. The Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance Proposal The State of Montana’s alternative Several versions of a “Revised E” alternative with minor differences submitted by the cooperating counties and the Blue Ribbon Coalition. From the total number of documents reviewed, 1% or about 500 documents expressed a preference for an alternative proposed by the NPS in the DEIS. An additional 93% or about 43,100 documents expressed support for one of the five alternatives listed above. | Alternative Preference Natural Other* No Regulation preference | 4% 6% | | | | | | | Citizens’ Revised E | | Solution —— ~—~(all versions) | 45% 44% | | | | = *Includes all NPS alternatives and State of Montana and Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance Alternatives. i /1/ COMMENTS i 90/20/00 TWH Bhs 2? FAR Moor PBnited States Senate WASHINGDTC2 O00N1 0-,80 0) STATOF SHEMAMTOR ECRANLG TZHO MAS Il would like to thank the National Park Service for holding theese public meetinge to hear the concerns of local citizens regerding the Winter Use BIS for Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. As Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee's Subcommittee on Parke and Recreation, I worked very hard to ensure that Che State of Wyoming and che local counties were included as cooperating agencies in thie process. Park and Teton Counties as well as the State of Wyoming have been actively involved in the BIS and have provided valuable information to the Park Service regarding the document. When the federal government undertakes actions that will have a direct impact on local communities, it is vital that they include representatives from the impacted sreas in that process. While I commend the Park Service for providing cooperating agency status to a number of the impacted counties in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, I do not believe the agency hae adequately listened to their concerns. I had hoped the EIS process would help the Park Service develop a solution that addresses the needs of local citizens as well as the federal government. Unfortunately, after reviewing the draft 815, that does not seem to be the case. I do not support the preferred alternstive the Park Service has proposed in the draft €1S. The purpose of our national parks is to protect our natural and culturel resources and provide visitors with a pleasurable experience. The preferred alternative fails to meet that objective. It does not adequately address the issues facing Yellowstone and Teton Parke and the concerns of individuals living in the local commmities. I urge the Park Service to reconsider ite alternative. The ahould develop a final plan that truly protects wildlife and mitigates the impacts of winter uae on the srea, while at the same time allows park visitors access to the area for a range of winter recreation experiences. Thank you once again for holding this hearing today. I look forward to working with the Park Service on thie important issue ae thie process moves forward. U.S. Congress RESPONSE BS . a U.S. Congress Re: Based on DEIS, NPS has not adequately listened to the concerns of cooperating agencies. In the process of reviewing and commenting on the DEIS, an inordinate amount of focus has been placed upon the designation of alternative B as the preferred alternative. This has colored the response, and the relationship between lead and cooperating agencies. Clearly, cooperating agencies are concerned about this designation because of the perceived impacts of plowing the road from West Yellowstone to Old Faithful for wheeled vehicle access. Since the NPS has indicated it is leaning heavily toward DEIS alternative G instead of alternative B, it appears that a disproportionate amount of time was spent on alternative B and its consequences. NPS is investigating a full range of alternatives in the DEIS. Various features of each of these alternatives may be mixed and matched in the eventual decision. NPS feels that much of the criticism of the EIS, per se, is misdirected because the concern is really about the decision yet to be made. NPS wishes to perform a legal and fair analysis of impacts, limited by the time available under the court settlement. The cooperators have been included, and their input has been considered and documented in the DEIS. NPS respectfully submits that the cooperators feel they have not been listened to because of the decision they think NPS is going to make, not the adequacy of the EIS. Re: The preferred alternative does not adequately address the issues facing the parks and the concerns of the local communities. Please see previous response. Considering the types and amounts of winter recreation use and the impacts that are at issue (i.e. sound, air pollution, health and safety, effects on other visitors, and damage to wildlife), alternative B is a possible approach to addressing some of the issues. At the time of DEIS’ publication, it appeared to be the best approach to the Park Service, as presented on pages 38-39. CEQ Regulations do not stipulate the rationaie for selecting a preferred alternative in an EIS. It stipulates that in a final EIS, a preferred alternative must be identified. The statement of preference for one or more alternatives in a DEIS is discretionary, depending upon whether the agency has a preference at that point (§1502.14(e)). The identification of a preferred alternative in a DEIS should be regarded by the public as extremely tenuous. This is because an EIS is to serve as a means of assessing impacts of proposed agency actions “rather than justifying decisions already made” (§1502.2(g)). The FEIS preferred alternative may be viewed more as a “precursor” decision, which will only become final in a Record of Decision that expresses the rationale for the choice. In any case, it is clear that merely the expression of a preferred alternative, by itself, can in no way invalidate the entire EIS analysis. The decision maker can select any of the proffered alternatives in a Final EIS through consideration of a variety of factors, including but not limited to environmental impacts. The selected alternative does not have to be the most environmentally preferable alternative, which must also be revealed in the decision document. Re: NPS should develop a final plan that protects wildlife, mitigates impacts and allows access for a range of winter recreation experiences. This comment goes to the decision to be made, not to the adequacy of the EIS or the range of alternatives considered. However, the statement is essentially how NPS views the purpose and need for action, and how it constructed the range of alternatives. Under NEPA (see previous response), a decision is not made until it is made in a record of decision based on a final EIS. The decision maker must consider the full range of alternatives available in the EIS and carefully weigh all the possible impacts against the agency mandate, regulations, executive orders and policies. The alternatives presented and analyzed in the DEIS include actions supported by cooperating agencies, mostly identified as Revised Alternative E, and features of other alternatives. COMMENTS RICK HILL as FOR ALL MONTARA BANKING AND 1609 LONGWORTH BUILDING MINANCIAL SERS CS (202 225-321) SMAI BURNESS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Dear Mr. Hawkes: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Winter Use Plan and Drafi Environmental Impact Statement for the Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and John D. Rockefeller, Jr, Memoria] Parkway. 1 believe all Americans want to ece our national parks managed in a way that protects the resourwce evaslu e But | also believe they want to continue (o have access to those parks to enjoy the scenery and the wildlife. In the case ofY ellowtshatt hoasn inech,ide d the use of snowmobiles to access the park in the winter season. I support continued snowmobile access to Yellowstone and the unique winter experience it provides for visitors from all over the world I had hoped this NEPA process, although complicated by the court's involvement, would provide ar Opportunity to evaluate how the public can continue to enjoy access while better protecting park resources. The purpose of NEPA is not to generate a document, but to produce responsible actoni theo grnoun d. NEPA requires thet the agency make informed decisions based on a clear and factual presentofa tthei imopanct s. The agency must alsc make diligent efforts to involve the public in their NEPA procedures. That includes listening to the public’s concerns early in the process and providing the public with a well-reasoned document upon which to comment. In this instance, where the proposed action has impacts to the environment that are interrelated to social cr economic impacts, ell those impacts must appear in the NEPA document. [ was encowuhenr thae agffeceted dsta tes and surrounding counties were granted cooperatmg status because they were in a position to both better inform the agency and enhance public perticepation by bringing key information to the process, particularly regarding economic and social impacts. Unfortunately, its eems the process to date, es embodied im this document, largely ignores the concems of the cooperators and fails to meet the NEPA compliance test of taking into account all relevant information. For example, earlier this year the agency missed deadlines for providing draft alternatives to the cooperators for review and input and failed to inform them in a timely manner as to the nature of the preferred alternative The alternatives were delivered without advance notice on April 22, 1999 with a request to return comments by May 24, 1999. Subsreqeuesqts buy meembmers of 290 EAST BROADWAY 518 S2OUNY 5S). SOUTH a? MORTH 3% $i REE! 15 8. LAST CHANCE GULCH FEDER A! BNL DING #25: GRBAT FALLS, MT S9a05 BILLINGS, 7 9990) ASPER COURT BLDG #2 MISSOU! 4, MT $9800 (406) 445-1068 408 156-1019 HELENMTA 9,96 01 1406) 543-9990 (40M) 494.1198 FAN (408) 250-3785 FAX (408) 443.0878 (23h $43 440 FAX (406) 049-3736 PAX EMAN : rick. b@i@end homegoy ¢ TOLL PREE LINE 1-400-908-4825 *° WED: www. house. gor/hil Poroen rte ycetedd pa per | wadi«an prgesm ed publithed sad meiied si tarpare: expense U.S. Congress Page2 November23 , 1999 the Congressional delegation to allow more time for response were denied by Park officials, who cited the pressing nature of the court-impdoeasdleinde s. Unfortuthen Paarkt Seervlicey i,tse lf did not itself show good faith in meeting thooe deadlines as represented by their earlier actions. As such, the cooperators' role, as well as the NEPA process, was compromised by the inadequste time for review and analysis, thereby denying the agency information that was critical to evaluating the economuc and social impacts oft he proposed alternatives. Most obvious ist hef act area and, in effect, minimized the impact on the very entities ith ad earlier identified as having the greintaerestt ient hsis ptroc ess. Without adequate time allowed, cooperators were made responfsiri anballyzein g local economic impacts for a preferred alternative about which they were not even consulted in earlier discussions. Ultimately that resulted in a draft document now out for public comment that contains discrepancies in the information about the economic and social impacts of the various alternatives. The document is also unclear as (o the purpose and need for the prrposed action. In this instance, the DEIS defines the problem by referring to the difference between existing and desired conditions without making a case for why such an abrupt change in current management is necesors waarrranyted . That is a key concern when activities allowed under current management have been sanctioned in the past by the very entity that now arbitrarily seeks their elimination. While the document identifies peripheral issues, such as concems with snowmobile emissions and sound, none of the documentation points to a problem of such magnitude as to justify the preferred alternative, particularly one with such significant economic impacts to local communities. These impacts are not only felt by the business community, but also by local governments who may have to cut back on services as well as by local citizens who are going to see taxes increase at the same time economic opportunity decreases. Furthermore, achieving the “desired condition” refers to the need for cooperative work between the National Park Service and other interests. To quote, “ these desired conditions should be facilitated by cooperative work between the NPS, other agencies, local and regional governments, communities, concessions, commercial operations, and the equipment manufacturing industry.” Yet none of the alternatives truly offers such a cooperative approach, and most certainly not the preferred alternative. In sum, NPS has simply offered a desired condition to be met, rather than determining an actual need for the proposed action That glaring inadequacy isc ompoundedb y NPS's failure to provide an alternative that achieves the desired outcome. In fact, the experience cooperating entities have had to dete with this process would suggest NPS may give lip service to seeking cooperation, but it isa hollow commitment on their part. It ist hat appardiesdanint f or + cee they bring to this process that has produced such a wed document. COMMENTS Page 3 November 23, 1999 However, since the DEIS is the only document we have before us today for purposes of comment, I wish to go on record in opposition to the preferred Alternative B that calls for plowing the road fr:«n West Yellowstone to Old Faithful. Not only has the NPS failed to justify the need for this alternative, the agency has failed to adequately evaluate the impact on surrounding comme ..\ities, on visitors, and on the physical and natural environment I do support efforts to address the concerns that have been raised with regard to the issues of winter use. However, I believe those concerns can be answered by modifications to Alternative E, similar to those proposed by the surrounding countes in conjunction with other interested parties. That approach emphasizes the protection of wildlife and other natural resources while allowing park visitors access to a range of winter recreation opportunities. It incorporateasn technology while drawing on local expertise and input through creation of an advisory comsnittec in compliance with the Federal Advisory Comuuittee Act. Although I still have concerns about the DETS in general, and the manner in which the cooperating entities have been treated, a mo \ified Alternative E can realize NEPA's purpose to foster “excellent action” on the ground if the revisions proposed by the counties, snowmobile interests and local communities are incorporated. Thank you for considmeyr coimmnengts . If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate tol et me know.