EPA backs snowmobile ban in Yellowstone, Grand Teton
The EPA says it is concerned that as a result of the Bush administration's decision to postpone a phased elimination of snowmobiles, "air quality, human health and visibility continued to be impaired" last winter.
The National Park Service is considering whether to bar snowmobiles from the parks. A decision is expected in November.
"The EPA is saying the park service has abundant evidence of snowmobile damage in Yellowstone and that it made the right judgment a year ago when it decided to phase out snowmobile use," said Jon Catton, spokesman for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition in Bozeman, Mont.
Snowmobile interests argue that the EPA's findings ignore data from manufacturers that show some new engine designs are cleaner and quieter than even a couple of years ago.
"I'm really surprised that the EPA didn't look at all of that," said Jack Welch, president of BlueRibbon Coalition, which advocates keeping federal lands open to snowmobiles and other motorized recreation vehicles.
Under stagnant, cold conditions, pollution gets trapped low to the ground and can quickly build to harmful levels.
A Clinton administration decision to ban the vehicles was reached in 2000 but was reconsidered by President Bush after the International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association and others challenged the pending ban in court. Under a settlement agreement, the National Park Service proposed a variety of options to permit at least limited snowmobile use, even as Yellowstone rangers donned respirators last winter to protect themselves from noxious exhaust.
Among the options being considered by the Park Service are limits on the number of snowmobiles, cleaner machines and better supervision by rangers or guides. But the EPA disputed whether those controls could be enforced or produce significant results. The agency said most of the proposals would continue to allow unacceptably high levels of carbon monoxide.
The Park Service "has been aware of this significant air quality issue for a number of years, and we therefore do not understand why it is not addressed in ... all alternatives considered in" its environmental impact study, the EPA report says.