Jon Jarvis Questioned During His Confirmation Hearing On Snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park

Jon Jarvis found himself pressed during his confirmation hearing Tuesday on the issue of snowmobiling in Yellowstone National Park.

Jon Jarvis found himself navigating a tricky path Tuesday during his confirmation hearing as the next director of the National Park Service when questioned about recreational snowmobiling in Yellowstone National Park.

Mr. Jarvis, currently the Park Service's Pacific West regional director, drew some laughter when he remarked that he was surprised that the Interior Department would announce a reduction in daily snowmobile numbers in the park the week before his confirmation hearing. But once the laughs died down, he tried his best to avoid a direct answer when U.S. Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyoming, pressed him on whether he supported snowmobiling in the park.

"My impression of the current situation is that we have made significant improvements in the quality of the experience. The snow machine industry has responded I think very effectively with machines that are much quieter and are much cleaner," said the nominee. "I believe that the guiding operations have significantly reduced, if not eliminated, the effects on wildlife, and I believe that the public's experience both in the snowcoaches and on the snow machines is at a very.

"... But as I mentioned, we have a volatile situation, particularly between the two dueling courts, that results in an unsure future, and I think that's something that you certainly have my commitment to work with you, and other members that are very, very concerned about this, to find a solution that provides great experiences in winter access to Yellowstone."

The senator from Wyoming, obviously unsatisfied with Mr. Jarvis's answer, pushed on.

"The New York Times had an editorial last week that said there shouldn't be any winter access by snow machines in Yellowstone Park, period," said the Republican. "You support snowmobile access to Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks, is that what I hear you say?"

"At this point I cannot commit one way or another," responded Mr. Jarvis, who seemed to avoid direct eye contact with Sen. Barrasso. "I don't know the details of this, but I do commit to winter use and winter access, and a sustainable decision, one that can provide continuity and planning for the gateway communities and for the park itself."

"Planning," replied the senator. "If you say there's no snowmobiles, that's an absolute answer, but that's not one that anybody in Wyoming is looking for. So, you said you were committed to winter access. I want to know that you're committed to winter access for snow machines in Yellowstone National Park."

Refusing to be forced into a corner, Mr. Jarvis answered that it would be inappropriate at this point for him to give a definitive answer.

"We have litigation in this case, two dueling courts, we have to do an interim rule, hopefully we can kick in immediately to do the environmental impact statement for the final rule, which will analyze, with the best available science, the working group that is out there, all of the stakeholders, on a range of alternatives," he said. "But at this point it would be incorrect for me to make a commitment to one or the other. We have to go through the process. I think that's the key."

But Sen. Barrasso was equally adamant to get a firm position from Mr. Jarvis, and pointed to a statement the Park Service made last fall -- under the Bush administration -- about the strides snowmobile technology has made in recent years in terms of air and noise pollution.

"Well, on November 17 of this past year, the National Park Service released a statement about winter use in Yellowstone. And this is the quote: 'Monitoring data from the past four winters shows excellent air quality, few wildlife disturbances and reduced sound impacts,' the things that you just mentioned," he said. "All were at fully acceptable levels. Air quality, wildlife, sound. All at fully acceptable levels, and below the levels recorded at the historic, unregulated use in the parks, which show that the limited use of guided, as you said, and Best Available Technology snowmobiles has worked. So the science appears to support current management of snowmobiles in the park. Do you agree with that National Park Service statement of November 17?"

"Absolutely," answered Mr. Jarvis. "I think all of those indicators, all of these programs that we've implemented as a system, as you mentioned, have significantly improved, not only the quality of the environment in this case, but also the public experience. What we're trying to reach now is something that is sustainable into the future. Applying all of those standards."

What the senator didn't broach, though, was the state of Wyoming's recent move back to federal court to try to increase daily snowmobile limits in Yellowstone above the current administration's preference. While Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has set daily limits of 318 for snowmobiles and 78 for snowcoaches during the next two winters while the Park Service once again works on a winter-use plan, Wyoming officials last week indicated that they want the snowmobile limit set at 740 machines. That number runs counter to what Yellowstone's scientists, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have said would be reasonable numbers in terms of wildlife disturbances and pollution.

From the winter of 2003-2004 through that of 2006-2007, 250-300 snowmobiles entered the park per day on average, according to park statistics. During that span of time scientific research conducted in the park documented in detail that increasing the number of snowmobiles above 250 per day would add significantly to noise and air pollution problems that already exceed park thresholds and would carry addition impacts on the park's wildlife. Plus, according to an EPA analysis of the research, allowing more than 250 snowmobiles per day into Yellowstone could compromise human health. Here's what the EPA told Yellowstone planners in June 2007: "Today, vehicle numbers are reduced by two-thirds compared to historic use, resulting in improved air quality and soundscapes as well as reduced wildlife disturbance."

Recognizing, perhaps, that he wasn't going to get the answer he desired, Sen. Barrasso changed tacks a bit and inquired about the Obama administration's position on automobile access to Yellowstone and Grand Teton parks.

"When we visited (prior to the hearing) we talked about the impact of snowmachines in the park in the winter versus the impact of automobiles in the summer. Do you know if the administration has any intention to cut visitation numbers in Yellowstone and Grand Teton park year-round in terms of automobile access, vehicles in the summer?" Sen. Barrasso asked.

"I have heard no indication of that for those two parks at all," replied the nominee.

"Is that anything that would be on your agenda?," wondered the senator in his parting shot.

"Certainly not," answered Mr. Jarvis.

Comments

Sen. Barrasso is just like any other bought politician seeing no other choice but the one sending money my way. If scientists & the public point to a certain limit, who are you to deny that?

Of course the senator's going to want a snowmobile-friendly NPS director. That's not surprising. To his credit, though, Sen. Barrasso did push through legislation to block oil and gas leasing on 1.2 million acres of the Wyoming Range in southwestern Wyoming.

That said, there was a Newsweek column a week or so ago about Supreme Court justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor that suggested confirmation hearings be done away with because the senators were merely trying to hop atop the soap box to stroke their constituents, while the nominees have been deftly schooled not to reveal much of anything. Sounds like a good suggestion, no?

This past winter here in Wisconsin, where snowmobiling is very big, snowmobilers (note that here it's usually called a snowmobile, whereas "snow machine" refers to a machine that makes snow) killed over 100 ducks and several deer in three separate incidents. The one involving the deer (http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/37692439.html) was especially horrific. In one of the duck cases, the DNR has apparently ruled the killing of 57 ducks an accident. I don't know how that could be (he is still facing criminal charges), but it underscores that we had apparently both intentional and accidental killings of wildlife with snowmobiles. It was bad enough that snowmobiling organizations were speaking out to condemn the killings. This is why a lot of us feel like, regardless of how safe most snowmobilers are or how good the technology is as far as noise and air pollution, this activity should be restricted in one of our nation's most precious resources. It's not about "keeping people out," it's about keeping wildlife and the park safe and healthy. Especially in Yellowstone, if something happens in a remote area it can be even harder to track or discover.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/38465594.html

I am a park ranger in a large western National Park. I am also a frequent visitor to National Parks. Part of the appeal for me is that I can go to a place that is relatively pristine and quiet and peaceful. I know my opinion may be extreme to some, but I don't believe snowmobiles should be allowed at all in Yellowstone. Nor do I think we should allow personal water craft in National Parks, or pets on trails. The United States has had the foresight to set aside millions of acres of public lands. There is a place where you can do anything you want, be it snowmobiling, hiking with your dog off-leash, even hunting and logging. Shouldn't there also be places where those things are prohibited? For the rest of us? Is it really necessary to bring a concealed weapon into a National Park? As a woman education ranger, I am already faced with the potential dangers inherent in a job that requires me to speak with hundreds of strangers every single day. I don't need the added worry that the next angry visitor I encounter is carrying a concealed weapon. Yes, most gun owners are reasonable, law-abiding citizens. Why then is it so important to carry a gun on vacation, in a place where you are not allowed to kill anything?

I just think that by making all of these concessions to lobbyists, like the snowmobile enthusiasts and the NRA, the Park Service is denying the revolutionary ideals that led to its creation in the first place. The Organic Act has been diluted so much that enjoyment of park resources has completely overtaken our other mission, which is to preserve those resources for future generations. PRESERVE, not just conserve. There is a difference.

Lucia,

I totally agree ! There are literally millions of acres of "piblic" land where these activities are allowed...........can't we and our beloved wildlife have a few places without snowmobiles, off road vehicles, watercraft, armed visitors, etc ?


When this topic comes up, the argument that I hear most often is that according to our mission statement we are to also provide recreational opportunities. I always remind people that this was written in 1916 when recreational opportunities meant hiking, skiing, swimming, etc. Motorized recreation was not even a thought and even cars were believed to be a passing craze.

Ranger Holly
http://web.me.com/hollyberry

Jon Jarvis pointed out to the committee that he refused to close the support offices in Pacific Region. As Director of the National Park Service, I believe Jon Jarvis will order that the Boston Support office remain open.

Jon is a pragmatist. He is politically astute and knows that falling on one's sword in a hopeless cause accomplishes little. I expect him to be an effective director.

"The National park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations."
Thus while part of the mission of the Park Service is to allow "enjoyment and benefit" to the people, the trick is to provide that identical "enjoyment and benefit to "future generations". Someone one hundred, or two hundred years from now must be able to enjoy the park "unimpaired". This is a very difficult task considering the multitudes of people who "enjoy" our parks every year. Most concerned only with their own "enjoyment".
Once any road goes in or building goes up, can we truly say that that part of the park is "unimpaired"? When vistas are blocked by air pollution or by hundreds of people munching icecream cones in front of a general store and huge parking lot, where once elk grazed in a meadow, can we say that it is "unimpaired"?
Seems like, if you look at how much we have already changed most parks in the name of "enjoyment and benefit" in just the last hundred years, there is little hope for the visitor two hundred years from now. What our parks need is a shift toward more of the "preserves" part of that statement. Maybe Mr. Jarvis could lean us in that direction.

Fundamentally, this is an emotional issue. As an avid primitive wilderness user, I dislike motorized equipment in the backcountry as much as the next, but in light of newer technologies, the scientific defense is weak. I would presume any scientific study that investigated comprehensive resource impacts would show that park roads and the summer automobile have a much higher degree of impact than winter snow machines. Few people would suggest targeting that user group since they are much more politically connected and have a larger constituency than the winter snowmachine group. I personally do not want snowmobiles in Yellowstone, but a science issue..... please!