You are here

NPCA Officials Cite Snowmobile Emissions In Criticizing Winter-Use Plan For Yellowstone National Park

Share

Pointing to the National Park Service's own testing as evidence, National Parks Conservation Association officials are criticizing a proposed winter-use plan for Yellowstone National Park, saying testing shows snowmobiles have gotten dirtier and noiser, not cleaner and quieter.

In pointing to the park's Yellowstone Over-snow Vehicle Emission Tests – 2012: Preliminary Report, NPCA officials say the trend to dirtier and noiser snowmobiles the past six years "contradicts the snowmobile industry’s repeated promises to make cleaner snowmobiles and keep unhealthy gasses such as carbon monoxide, benzene and formaldehyde from fouling the air of the country’s oldest national park."

The report explains that scientists tested 2011-model snowmobiles in Yellowstone and compared their emissions with 2006 models made by the same companies, NPCA noted in a release.

"One manufacturer’s newer snowmobile emitted over 20 times more carbon monoxide than its earlier model. Another company’s newer model had higher emissions of every exhaust gas sampled, including 5 times more hydrocarbons," the release said.

The report concludes: “The model change in snowmobiles has not been a positive influence on air quality based on the emission data.”

In releasing the park's Draft Supplement Winter-Use Environmental Impact Statement earlier this month, Superintendent Dan Wenk said his proposal to allow up to 480 snowmobiles a day in Yellowstone, more than twice the average entries of recent winters, would make the park “cleaner and quieter.”

However, the National Park Service’s own studies contradict that assertion, the NPCA release said. "That document shows the proposed plan would increase snowmobile noise and pollution in Yellowstone National Park with significantly greater emissions of carbon monoxide and cancer-causing gasses such as formaldehyde and benzene," the park advocacy group said.

“Rewarding a technology that is going backward and getting dirtier is the very opposite of stewardship that Americans expect and deserve in Yellowstone National Park,” said Tom Kiernan, NPCA president. “After 10 years of pledging to make major improvements to emissions and noise, the snowmobile industry has gone back on its promise to the National Park Service and the public."

The emissions study looked at “recent additions to the snowcoach fleet” and concluded: “emissions are generally lower for newer snowcoaches compared to mean values of the earlier fleet and especially compared to the older carbureted engine snowcoaches.”

Indeed, specific data provided in the report show that current snowcoaches are up to 50 times cleaner than current models of “Best Available Technology” snowmobiles when the vehicles’ carbon monoxide emissions are calculated on a per-visitor basis. In per-visitor emissions of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, the report shows snowcoaches are 2-5 times cleaner than snowmobiles. The report reflects that these air-quality advantages of snowcoaches are expected to become even more significant when Yellowstone requires all snowcoaches to utilize newer engines.

“The National Park Service should make an immediate U-turn on this misguided policy. After all, the growing majority of Yellowstone Park’s visitors prefer multi-passenger snow coaches, which are demonstrably cleaner than snowmobiles, which are getting dirtier. Even park officials have acknowledged that,” said Chuck Clusen, director of the National Park Project at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The only obvious and responsible path forward is to facilitate the use of snow coaches, not snowmobiles.”

Comments

I quote, "testing shows snowmobiles have gotten dirtier and noiser, not cleaner and quieter."

This statement is 100% false and inaccurate. ABSOULTELY FALSE. To even suggest it shows how uninformed the source is, simply using whatever lies they can drum up in hopes of swaying public opinion. SHAME! Anyone familiar with snowmobiles and their engine technology that been implemented over the past ten years knows for an absolute FACT that this statement is blatantly false. It is so incredibly far from the truth that it makes me sick to think that it would be published and even suggested.

A carbureted two-stroke snowmobile engine like what was allowed into the park for what 30 years is going to outputting so much more in terms of unburned fuel and carbon emisisons it is crazy. I have personally studied the emissions data, and each new engine built must be certified as to how clean it is buy the EPA so this is public knowledge. The new sled engines are cleaner and quieter, we have the proof. The latest BAT (best available technology) machines are using super-clean 4-stroke engines (exactly like the ones found in motorcycles that enter the park unrestricted all summer long) and direct-injection two-stroke engines that operate so clean and quiet you can run one in your garage and not be overcome with fumes. Seriously. Cleaner than a four-stroke in many respects.

Noise? These new engines are far quieter than the "old" ones. So do not believe these LIES for a second. This is what it has come down to, using FALSE information to promote an agenda. How stupid do you think we really are? When the day comes that we have electric snowmobiles, these same groups will not be happy - they will instead move the target to some other criteria. Call it dangling the carrot, moving the target, or never satisifed, it is all accurate. But it's OK for them to drive their car or motorcycle through the park in the summer, but I can't ride my sled with the same engine in the winter? What makes you so special? That's called a DOUBLE-STANDARD in my book. Maybe they don't want cars to be entering in the summer? Makes you wonder what the real long term agenda really is, now doesn't it?


Kevin, perhaps you need to take the issue up with park officials and their researchers, for they're the ones who published the data about noise and emissions.


But it's OK for them to drive their car or motorcycle through the park in the summer, but I can't ride my sled with the same engine in the winter? What makes you so special? That's called a DOUBLE-STANDARD in my book. Maybe they don't want cars to be entering in the summer? Makes you wonder what the real long term agenda really is, now doesn't it?

You--and a number of other posings above--are assuming that there is smehow no difference between summer and winter climates--i.e. that snowpack doesn't exist. Take another look at the link Kurt posted (as well as an infinity of other articles).


Anon - what that study tells me is that thcorrelation directcorrelation between traffic and co and at any measured level the park is well below established standards.


I appreciate all of this information, and I am looking at it. I don't want to sound like someone who favors snowmobile use in the teeth of the facts, if the facts are bad. Instead, I only want to be generally open-minded about people's various desired uses for public lands and not oppose those uses based on myths or stereotypes.

I have to admit that the motorcyclists and ATV drivers give me fits in high-altitude Colorado and Idaho when I'm on my mountain bike. They're crucial for the economies of both places—at least that's what motel and restaurant owners tell me. And I admire the bike-handling skill of the motorcyclists on technical singletrack. Those guys are quite physically fit, believe me—they have to be. But I'm not thrilled about pulling over while a mile-long ATV train roars by me or if I have to deal with motorcycle ruts and noise on a beautiful singletrack trail at 11,000 feet. Anyone who's been on the Reno Divide-Flag Creek-Bear Creek loop south of Crested Butte, Colo., will know what I'm talking about.


Kevin, perhaps you need to take the issue up with park officials and their researchers, for they're the ones who published the data about noise and emissions.

Kurt your article is the one that mentions dirtier and noisier snowmobiles yet the study you have in the second paragraph that your article is based off of has no mention of noise levels in it so how can you come to the conclusion that they are noisier when the study doesn't have any sound level information in it? Also it shows a 2012 snowmobile cleaner in some respects than its 2006 counterpart and you just say they are dirtier when your source says otherwise. The bottomline is the studies show that air quality is far below air quality standards in the park and is not an issue.

Also your study link you have comparing summer to winter shows the seasonal average of CO being the same when comparing summer to winter and shows the PM2.5 as being higher in the summer yet you somehow claim it is cleaner in the summer when the study you cite says otherwise. Even in its conclusion it says "Overall, the current CO and PM2.5 air quality is well below the national standards during the winter."

Again just go enjoy the park, it will not dissappoint. See for yourself instead of trying to twist studies around.


Park officials, including staff that worked on the studies and analyzed the data, acknowledged during a conference call with reporters that snowmobiles had gotten dirtier and noiser. True, they haven't yet posted all the soundscape data, which is curious.

That said, have you read the DSEIS?

As noted in several places on the Traveler, the park's research shows that overall 8-hour CO emissions are greater now than they were just a few years ago, and they would continue to increase under the preferred alternative. No twisting required.

From previous articles:

* In writing the DSEIS park planners seemingly pulled some punches when discussing CO emissions. On page 110 of Chapter 3, they wrote that "(M)aximum 8-hour CO concentrations at Old Faithful have declined from 1.2 ppm in 2002/2003 to 0.4 ppm in 2007/2008." But if you turn to page 114, Table 16 shows that while 8-hour CO emissions did indeed dip to 0.4 ppm during the 2007/08 winter season, they rose to 1.7 ppm in 2009/10 before sliding a bit to 0.9 ppm in 2010/11. The numbers get worse when you look at 1-hour maximum levels, which rose from 0.9 ppm at Old Faithful in 2007/08 to 7.6 ppm in 2009/10 and 4.3 ppm in 2010/11.

* Under the park's preferred alternative, which could allow upwards of 480 snowmobiles and 60 snowcoaches per day, CO emissions would jump to 252 tons per year until BAT kicked in for the 2017-18 winter season, when CO would dip to 212 tons. The current CO emissions total 138 tons per year.

* Other toxics also could be reduced more so than under the preferred alternative. Benzene emissions from the current mix of over-snow vehicles amounted to 0.17 tons per year. Under Alternative 3, those emissions would fall to just 0.05 tons, while under the park's preferred alternative, they would grow to 0.29 tons until the 2017-18 season, when they'd dip to 0.18 tons, still more than the current fleet.

* As for noise levels, the draft clearly states on page 262 in Chapter 4 that, "(A)ssuming the maximum allowed use levels, OSVs (over-snow vehicles) would be audible over 50 percent of the time in approximately 14.1 percent to 17.4 percent of the travel corridor area, compared to 9.7 percent of the travel corridor area under recent average conditions."


I have only really opened the DSEIS and skimmed it and not taken the time to read it except when you point things out.

I have read your linked studies that state "Overall, the current CO and PM2.5 air quality is well below the national standards during the winter." The study also stated "Basically, air quality has stabilized at below 20% of the CO standard in winter over the last 4 years." This all means it is a long way from even being an issue.

I also read "The observed air quality is dependent on several meteorological conditions that dominate changes in the CO concentrations when there are just small changes in the snowmobile traffic." This means that the weather plays a lot bigger role in the emissions than the actual changing the numbers of snowmobiles operating in the park.

That is no twist just quoting from the links to studies that you offered above.

Now to your bullet points. On point number one the studies have said that meteorological conditions dominate changes in the CO conditions so you can't just blame the snowmobiles when mother nature has a dominating influence. Also the air quality monitoring shelter and parking lots were changed at some time period that the studies didn't say which could make changes in seasonal readings when trying to compare different years of data.

On your points 2,3, and 4 you are trying to twist things because you are again comparing apples to oranges. You must convert apples to apples to be able to compare. You are trying to compare an actual or average in history to the maximum in the future. I will go out on a limb and say with confidence that you will not have 480 snowmobiles and 60 snowcoaches a day in the park under the new plan. You can't compare an average to a maximum, it is absolutely meaningless. At this point in time all you can do is attempt to compare the maximums of the old plans to the maximums of the new plan.

As far as the noise on the winter travel corridor. Is that really a bad thing? The numbers are a lot higher in the summer time and the summer travel corridor is much larger than the winter travel corridor because many roads are closed to snowmobiles in the winter that are open to the automobiles in the summer thus helping the summer noise impact a larger area of the park. I don't see the NPCA making much of an issue about the summer noise.

Just food for thought. Now again quit nit picking numbers and go enjoy the park. Years of studies conclude that the air is not bad in the winter. Thanks for your time.


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.