You are here

Federal Judge Blocks Recreational Snowmobiling in Yellowstone National Park

Share

Will there be recreational snowmobiling in Yellowstone this winter? NPS photo.

A federal judge, ruling that Yellowstone National Park's decision to continue recreational snowmobile use in the park runs counter to science and the National Park Service's conservation mission, has tossed out the park's winter-use plan.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan's ruling, while sure to spur more legal battles, throws in doubt whether there will be recreational snowmobiling in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks when the winter season gets under way in mid-December.

"We've got to figure out what it means. We don't know where we go from here," Yellowstone spokesman Al Nash said this afternoon. "The judge was very clear that he took issue with some of our analysis and decision-making. It's up to our winter-use planning staff and Justice Department attorneys to study this so we know how to move forward."

In his 63-page ruling, which was stinging at times in its criticism of the Park Service's interpretation of its own Organic Act, Judge Sullivan held that while the Organic Act does call for public enjoyment of the national parks, "(T)his is not blanket permission to have fun in the parks in any way the NPS sees fit."

"As plaintiffs articulated at the hearing, the 'enjoyment' referenced in the Organic Act is not enjoyment for its own sake, or even enjoyment of the parks generally, but rather the enjoyment of 'the scenery and natural and historic objects and wild life' in the parks in a manner that will allow future generations to enjoy them as well," wrote Judge Sullivan in today's ruling. "NPS cannot circumvent this limitation through conclusory declarations that certain adverse impacts are acceptable, without explaining why those impacts are necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of the park."

The winter-use plan was challenged by the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, the National Parks Conservation Association, the Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, the Winter Wildlands Alliance, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

“This ruling reaffirms the idea at the heart of our National Park System—that the duty of Yellowstone’s managers is to preserve the park for the sake of all visitors, and to place the highest value on protection of Yellowstone’s unique natural treasures,” said Tim Stevens, senior Yellowstone Program Manager for NPCA.

“This ruling will ensure that visitors are not disappointed by air and noise pollution when they make the one winter trip to Yellowstone of their lives,” said Amy McNamara, National Parks Program Director for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. “We take our hats off to the tour businesses that didn’t wait for this ruling. Their increasing investments in modern snowcoaches are already making it possible for winter visitors to access and enjoy Yellowstone while protecting it.”

At the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, leaders were calling for Yellowstone and National Park Service officials to accept the judge's ruling and work harder to protect the parks' resources.

"They should be quietly praising this whole thing instead of continuing to obfuscate the whole question in my judgment," said Bill Wade, who chairs the coalition's executive council. "It should be very clear where they go from here.”

Mr. Wade said Yellowstone Superintendent Suzanne Lewis should have the authority to pass an emergency rule to allow a limited amount of snowmobiling in the park this year while her staff moves to develop a winter-use plan in line with Judge Sullivan's ruling.

That said, the coalition believes snowcoaches -- not snowmobiles -- should transport winter visitors in Yellowstone because the coaches are safe, quieter, less polluting, and less impacting to wildlife than snowmobiles.

During the past 11 years the Yellowstone snowmobiling saga has seesawed back and forth. While the Clinton administration on its way out of office issued a directive that snowmobile use be phased out of the park, the Bush administration immediately stayed that when it took office.

A series of legal challenges -- some by conservation groups, some by snowmobile advocates such as the International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association -- alternately pulled the Park Service in opposite directions. The latest decision came last November, when Yellowstone officials approved a plan to allow up to 540 snowmobiles and 83 snowcoaches per day into the park -- despite research that concluded such levels would impact park resources.

When the coalition of conservation groups announced its legal challenge to the plan, it noted that the Park Service disclosed in a study accompanying its decision that allowing 540 snowmobiles into Yellowstone each day would dramatically expand to 63 square miles-the portion of the park where visitors could expect to hear snowmobile noise during more than half of the visiting day. That would be a three-fold increase from the current portion of the park where noise intrudes on the visitor’s experience during at least half the day.

The groups also noted that in its Final Environmental Impact Study accompanying its decision, the Park Service acknowledged that Congress established the National Park Service in 1916 in part due to a recognition that the American people “wanted places to go that were undisturbed and natural and which offered a retreat from the rigors and stresses of everyday life.”

Judge Sullivan found more than a few problems with the National Park Service's conclusions in approving the winter-use plan (WUP). Among them:

* The court finds that NPS fails to articulate why the WUP's impacts are 'acceptable.' NPS simply repeats the above standards in the context of the WUP's impacts on soundscapes, wildlife, and air quality, but fails to provide any supporting analysis of how the impacts relate to those standards.

* The ROD (record of decision) makes no effort to explain, for example, why impacts on soundscapes characterized as 'major and adverse' do not 'unreasonably interfere with the soundscape' and cause an unacceptable impact.

* Similarly, NPS fails to explain why increasing the amount of benzene and formaldehyde to levels that broach (and sometimes exceed) the minimum risk levels applicable to hazardous waste sites does not 'create an unsafe or unhealthful environment for visitors or employees.'

* ... NPS provides no quantitative standard or qualitative analysis to support its conclusions that the adverse impacts of the WUP are 'acceptable.'

* As with soundscapes and wildlife, the court finds that NPS has failed to articulate why a plan that will admittedly worsen air quality complies with the conservation mandate.

In his conclusion, Judge Sullivan found that the winter-use plan "clearly elevates use over conservation of park resources and values and fails to articulate why the plan's 'major adverse impacts' are 'necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of the park."

"NPS fails to explain how increasing snowmobile usage over current conditions, where adaptive management thresholds are already being exceeded, complies with the conservation mandate of the Organic Act," he wrote.

While this ruling was being digested today, Yellowstone's winter-use planners were joined by Department of Justice attorneys in Cheyenne, Wyoming, before U.S. District Judge Clarence Brimmer. Judge Brimmer, who in the past has ruled almost completely opposite Judge Sullivan on the snowmobile issue, was conducting a hearing into a lawsuit brought by the state of Wyoming and Park County, Wyoming, over the winter-use plan's 540-snowmobile-per-day limit as well as its requirement that snowmobilers be led by commercial guides.

Comments

It's ironic that most of these comments are in favor of keeping snowmobiles out of YELL, yet most of the commentators on CAHA issues want motorized access. Perhaps many of the CAHA people aren't interested in YELL? Or is YELL somehow different than CAHA? If so, is it really our - or anyone's - prerogative to say that one park is more deserving of protection than another?


I agree with Paul. There has to be other places for people to snowmobile in the winter besides Yellowstone NP. Or any other National Park for that matter. Animals and habitat are already under stress in the winter. Why add more? My hats off to all the people involved in reaching this decision.


It's ironic that most of these comments are in favor of keeping snowmobiles out of YELL, yet most of the commentators on CAHA issues want motorized access. Perhaps many of the CAHA people aren't interested in YELL? Or is YELL somehow different than CAHA? If so, is it really our - or anyone's - prerogative to say that one park is more deserving of protection than another?

I would take exception to that comment, anon. Protection of all NPS units should be our mission. However, in all fairness, to compare YELL to CHNSRA is akin to comparing Mars to Jupiter. Please do not infer that we care only for our area of this country.

-"White noise" caused by the surf interaction on the beach reach levels sufficient to be heard for miles. There are no such noise issues in this arena.

-PWC's, (Personal Water Craft), usage has been banned for over a decade.

-ORV's allowed in the area are state licensed vehicles only, not ATV's.

The CHNSRA Rangers employ both ATV's and either Ford or Dodge 4WD vehicles to perform their duties. I would assume that YELL rangers employ similar vehicles from 4WD autos to snowmobiles to snowcats to patrol their boundaries.

Should these be banned as well?

The similarities in this situation and those unfolding in the CHNSRA are curious. Single Federal Judges are blocking public access to public lands on the basis of type of access.

Beware that hiking may one day be denied...


As an Alaskan who has spent time on a snow machine I support this decision. Snowmachines, ORVs, and other such vehicles have no place in parks whose mission is to protect and preserve the scenery and the ecosystems. These recreational activities are not compatible with this directive. There are other public and private lands where these damaging activities can occur. I hope the same ruling can apply to Denali Park where snow machining still occurs in some areas. Let us learn to appreciate the wild at the wilds pace.


I am not saying that anything should be banned. All I did was point out the difference in the reaction to similar cases in YELL and CAHA. And wonder why the CAHA crew hasn't jumped on the bandwagon to allow snowmobiles in YELL....

Moreover, the judges are doing what they are supposed to do - interpreting and enforcing the laws to the best of their understanding and ability. Of course it's going to be one judge - it's not like there's a whole panel of them sitting up there at this point in the system (yes, I know if it is appealed, then there will be more than one...) That's why judges are there - to make tough decisions like this. They aren't around to make people happy, and the whole "activist judges are out to ruin the country and are ignoring the majority of Americans" argument, no matter who it comes from (liberals use it just as often as conservatives) is getting old as dirt. Grow up already. People who say things like that make it sound like one day we'll wake up to find breathing and eating banned.

And for goodness' sake, quit calling it CHNSRA. No one in the rest of the country calls it that (not even the people who write their brochures!), and even though it's the right name, you don't need to throw it in our face as if it's proof that it's justified for people to run all over the park.


There might be some pertinent insight to be gained, by looking into the background & history of Judge Sullivan. There's always been hangin' Judges, and warnin' Judges.

From the points Kurt quotes the Judge as listing, the bench is basically 'fixing' the Park's winter use Plan. "You need to do better here, you need to be more specific there."

For the Judge to say ...

"(T)his is not blanket permission to have fun in the parks in any way the NPS sees fit."

... sounds a tad unprofessional & weak. He's basically coming off as a 'smart-mouth'. He faulted the Park for 'winging-it', then he turns around and does the same thing.

Going by the emphasis placed on how loud & polluting snowmobiles are ("the science"), it strikes me as likely they will eventually be allowed. All ya gotta do is make them quite & clean. Problem solved!

New (and increasingly popular) four-stroke snowmobile engines make the machine a whole new ball game. (It's the inherently/easily more-powerful, lighter-weight and more-compact 2-cycle engines that make snowmobiles 'loud & smelly'. It costs more to make a similarly small, light & powerful 4-stroke, but once you do, it's dramatically quieter & cleaner.)

Set standards for noise & emissions, and the manufactures will meet it. End of problem, right? Or maybe not ...

Many who object to snowmobiles rattle off several objective reasons ("the science") why the machines are bad and should therefore be banned. Yet many also reveal clearly enough that their true objection is emotional & subjective in nature. They are attentive to benzene levels, not so much as a problem to correct, but as a pry-bar to get rid of snowmobiles ... whether they are really - objectively & "scientifically" - hurting anything or not.

The main 'real' issue with snowmobiles that I'm seeing is, the potential 'running' or disturbance of wildlife. Preventing this could involve some regulation, and active/adaptive management, but it should certainly be possible to have both contented buffalo, and contented snowmobilers.


Why do we keep allowing these motorized machines to pollute the environment in all our parks. The parks are not meant for racing etc they are meant to preserve the plants and animals and allow for guarded enjoyment by the public in such a way that the environment or animals are not interfered with. The use of our parks by the loud zing zingers only occurs because of intense lobbying by those selling and using these noisy, disturbing machines. Thank God someone defends the silent majority obviously our politicians don't!


bearguy,

Alaska!

Do you have a sense how the general Alaska snowmobile community stands on this question? Is it typical or atypical for an Alaskan snowmobiler to oppose their use in Parks?

I note that you characterize snowmobiles as involving "damaging activities". If we identify specifically what these damages are, and then take measures to prevent the damage - then what?

In fact, bearguy, I suspect the perspective of Alaskans, and the situation in Alaska, has more to do with how the question of ORVs in Parks will be settled nation-wide, than many folks realize (or are willing to admit).

I have watched the hearings and rulings on snowmobiles in Denali fairly closely, but I can't discern an outcome or intent.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.