You are here

NPS Director Jarvis States Agency's Opposition To Yellowstone-Grand Teton Paddling Bill

Share

National Park Service Director Jarvis has written U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, to state the agency's opposition to legislation that would open up dozens of streams and rivers in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks to packrafts/Yellowstone River Delta by Jim Peaco, NPS

Legislation aimed at opening streams and rivers in Grand Teton and Yellowstone national parks to packrafters would undermine the authority of the National Park Service to manage these parks and "set a very poor precedent," says National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis.

The director laid out the agency's opposition to the Yellowstone and Grand Teton Paddling Act in a letter (attached) to U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee that last month supported the legislation drafted by U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyoming. Her measure specifically directs the Park Service to allow packrafters access to 50 streams in the two parks.

Among those 50 segments are 4.3 miles along Spread Creek from Grand Teton's eastern boundary to the Snake River, 6.8 miles of Pilgrim Creek from Grand Teton's northeast boundary to Jackson Lake, 26.7 miles of Yellowstone River from Yellowstone's southeast boundary to Yellowstone Lake, and 5.7 miles of the Mountain Ash Creek in southwestern Yellowstone to the creek's confluence with the Falls River.

Director Jarvis said the legislation would subvert the Park Service's authority under the National Park Service Organic Act to manage the resources in the two parks.

"The bill would diminish the ability of park managers to meet their responsibilities under the NPS Organic Act and other laws to provide for pub!ic enjoyment, ensure visitor safety, and address adverse effects to resources at those units and also would set а poor precedent for the NPS," he wrote in the letter sent Nov. 13. "There may be no other scenic resource like this in the United States, and possiЬ!y the world, where visitors can experience large intact river systems and their environments in а wild, ecologically pristine state."

Rep. Lummis in 2014 introduced legislation to open waters in the two parks to packrafters after discussing the matter with members of the American Packrafting Association. That initial effort was short on specifics, but gave the Interior Department and the Park Service three years to assess the paddling potential of nearly 7,000 stream miles in Yellowstone, and dozens more miles in nearby Grand Teton.

While the measure was not taken up last year by Congress, Rep. Lummis reintroduced a similar measure early this year. That legislation, if enacted, would give the Park Service three years to study the potential streams that could be opened to paddle sports such as packrafting, kayaking, and canoeing and assess what impacts could be created; prevent additional commercial paddling operations beyond what currently are in place, and; somewhat restrict where paddlers could go in Grand Teton. But during last month's committee meeting she amended it with language that opponents maintain would force the Park Service to open up more than 400 miles of streams to paddlers. 

The Park Service fears the congresswoman's legislation, if enacted, could lead to significant resource damage in the parks.

"These rivers are sensitive nesting and breeding grounds for wildlife, home to endemic and endangered species, spawniпg grounds for native cutthroat trout, апd some of the last streams in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem for Arctic grayling. Opening these waterways will increase the risk of the traпsmission of aquatic invasive species like zebra and quagga mussels, Eurasian watermilfoil, whirling disease and others," wrote Director Jarvis.

He also pointed out that paddlers already have access to 163 of the 168 lakes in Yellowstone, and to 26 miles of the Snake River in Grand Teton, as well as to numerous lakes in that park.

Between holidays, scheduled recesses for both Senate and House, and major issues such as the nation's debt limit and budget yet to be resolved, whether this legislation will gain further attention this session is questionable.

Comments

Mr. Jarvis' comments indicate why this bill needs to pass.  Paddling is a non-motorized, non-consumptive use that is less-intrusive than currently allowed activites such as fishing and horsepacking.  Its unfortunate that it is going to take an act of congress to correct this example of beaurcratic mangement run amok. 


Whoa!  I had completely forgotten about invasive aquatic species.

Given the fact that it has been almost impossible to keep them out of other bodies of water, I can't see any point in risking them in Yellowstone.  In many places, some boat owners (apparently a significant number in some areas) go to great lengths to avoid boat checks and washings.  Perhaps the best thing to do would be to ban ALL watercraft from outside the park from launching in any Yellowstone waters.


A person would have to be blind, deaf, and dumb not to see the waterfowl, beaver, and other animals running away from the bank or scurying to find shelter in the streamside vegetation as they float a river. Paddling may be non-consumptive in some ways, but certainly not in it's effects on wildlife.


It is important that this bill passes, but not for reasons people might think. I am a paddler and have supported this bill, but it is more about legislative check on an executive oversight, than it is about paddling. YNP and GTNP illegally dismissed a mandatory requirement to analyze Park river corridors for recreational uses such as paddling during compliance for the 2009 Snake River Headwaters Legacy Act, which designated the headwaters of the Snake as Wild and Scenic. Neither paddlers nor Rep Lummis would have pursued or introduced this legislation if the NPS had diligently looked at the impacts paddling might have on Park resources. For this reason, this bill sets no unsavory precedent. The more concerning precedent here is that the NPS keeps getting away with banning a legitimate traditional primitive low-impact use for 65 years with no real analysis or review. For me, this bill is about ensuring that Americans who wish to roam the wilderness by the means of their choosing have opportunities to do so within the bounds of appropriateness and sustainability. The NPS has maintained this ban for no apparent reason.

As for aquatic invasive species...Yes this is an important consideration that needs to be examined during the three-year study that this bill requires. It's worth noting that current AIS epidemics have occurred during the 65-year period that river paddling has been is banned. Currently, paddling is allowed on rivers and streams flowing from adjoining Forest lands into the parks. So if small paddle craft were a real threat of introducing aquatic invasives into the Parks, it would have already happened from paddlers using these streams outside the Parks. Better management and education about these "water trails" that cross management jurisdictions would significantly reduce the risk of the inadvertent introduction of aquatic invasive species.

A permitted river system could pay for managed paddling in these Parks and improve the AIS program for all users. The current AIS program puts too much emphasis on low-risk small boats that are easily cleaned, drained, and dried, and not enough real teeth to prevent the launch of potentially infected larger power boats. Look at the history of the spread of quaggas and zebras, the most noxious offenders, in the U.S. - Great Lakes - Lake Mead - Lake Powell and outward. These are not kayakers or rafters that are spreading these mussels. If Yellowstone and Grand Teton really want to get serious about the spread of AIS they would require a high-risk inspection on any boat with a bilge that has been in an infected state before they launch on Park waters - they are not currently doing this.

Mr Jarvis, your agency has struggled with relevancy and credibility, especially in Yellowstone and Grand Teton where haphazard management seems to be a tradition. Last year, YNP increased commercial horse use in the river corridors and motorboat use on the lakes with no analyses. Parkwide, a place is made for snowmobiles, and unlimited summer auto traffic, while snow bikes remained banned. Meanwhile, there still has been no acknowledgement of the need for a transportation plan. GTNP allows 60,000 motor boat and commercial raft rides each summer. Meanwhile, an arbitrary ban on backcountry paddling has been perpetuated.

The Yellowstone and Grand Teton Paddling Act will require the Parks to analyze paddling along with other uses of the river corridors and devise a management plan that balances the impacts of all the uses so that some paddling can occur on the specific watercourses mentioned in the bill. Please educate yourself about this bill. Smart people who love these Parks helped write it. Rep Lummis was brave enough to introduce it. For more info, please visit: http://packraft.org/American_Packrafting_Association/YNP-GTNP.html.


Many of the mal-effects of paddling that you cite can be equally applied to other primitive uses of the river corridors such as angling, camping, hiking, swimming, horsepacking, etc. Americans who love paddling and traditional primitive backcountry recreation should be asking the Parks to do the required analyses of these uses, and balance each use's numbers so that the impacts on wildlife are kept at a level that does not cause lasting harm. Instead, the Parks have singled out one use...paddling...that in some ways IMHO is far less impactful than the other uses. But this should not be about opinions. It should be about analysis. That's what this bill will require the Parks to do. It may be that during some times of the year, paddling has a greater impact than another use on a certain aspect of wildlife survival. During that time of year, paddling use would be decreased or prohibited. Maybe during another time of year, the other use is more impactful, and hence the opposite would take effect. Right now, there is no rhyme or reason to YNP or GTNP backcountry management in the river corridors. Case in point are new allowances in the last year for increased commercial horse use in the river corridors. Yet, some still complain that paddlers will impact grizzlies. Can we please approach this thoughtfully? This bill will put some reason back into backcountry management in these Parks.


Anon, I can't think of any streams that flow INTO the park that might be at all navigable by any kind of craft.  Isn't Yellowstone on a wide plateau upon which streams originate and flow OUTward?  Which streams are you referring to?


Thanks for the question!! Gros Ventre River, Spread Creek, Buffalo Fork, Pacific Creek, Pilgrim Creek, Snake River, Yellowstone River, Mountain Creek, Thorofare Creek, Soda Butte Creek, Slough Creek, Hellroaring Creek, and probably others I've missed...all wonderful floats that see some paddling use for many years with no apparent adverse impacts. All of these streams originate outside the Parks, but then flow into YNP and/or GTNP.


Thanks for the list, but aren't about half of those streams that flow into Grand Teton and not Yellowstone?  And are Thorofare, Soda Butte, Slough and Hellroaring really "navigable" even by floats?

I'm sorry, but I still look at this idea as something akin to demands for ATV use in our parks.  With literally thousands of miles of streams open outside the parks, why can't we keep some sacred places truly sacred?  Do we want to open our natural cathedrals to rafting in the baptismal fonts?


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.