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

Let me ask you two questions, YNP4everyone:

1) What would be wrong with minimizing to the greatest extent possible air quality impairments and noise levels, while also letting folks enjoy the park in winter?

2) Do you have a vested interest in snowmobiling in Yellowstone?


What would be wrong with minimizing to the greatest extent possible air quality impairments and noise levels...

This is the epitome of what is wrong with the "environmental movement". Minimize no matter the cost and no matter the actual benefit. The study shows that CO emissions are already well below national standards - which themselves are probably artificially low. What is right about minimizing when it isn't necessary?

Do you have a vested interest in snowmobiling in Yellowstone?

I don't know about YNP but I don't have a vested interest in snowmobiling. I don't even like having them on trails I might be hiking/snowshoeing et al. But I respect the right of others to want to snowmobile and believe there should be adequate facilities to meet their demand.


Anonymous, according to all the stats, there would be no additional costs. The technology already exists.


there would be no additional costs.

Then why don't you start up a business with this "existing technology'? Why hasn't anyone done so? Surely a business that could advertise lower emissions and lower noise at no additional cost would be a big winner. The reason is your "no additional cost" is a fantasy.


I'm not in the OSV business, that's why anonymous.

Yet park officials say the technology already exists, YNP4everyone points out there are certain models of snowmobiles that already meet BAT standards. So phase it in. Don't do it overnight. As businesses turn over their fleets, tell them they need to meet X standards by X year. If they can do it with snowmobiles, fine. If they can do it with snowcoaches, that's fine, too.

Beyond that, your previous comments raise an interesting question. How much is good enough for Yellowstone?

Where do you draw the line in the world's first national park between "this is what we can do with current technology, but we're satisfied if we just go this far...."?

Of course, another question is should every activity be allowed and provided for in Yellowstone? That's a deeper philosophical debate.


Don't try to put words in my mouth, imbtnbke....


I'm not in the OSV business, that's why anonymous.

That might explain why you don't do it but it doesn't explain why nobody else has.

Yet park officials say the technology already exists,

Sure and the technology for an electrical car exists. However a Chevy Volt costs 2 1/2 times its gas equivalent. It doesn't come at "no cost" but does come at no benefit.


"Don't try to put words in my mouth, imtnbke..."

I'm not. What I said is true of many people who voice that sentiment. But many, not all. That's why I was careful to qualify my comment by beginning it with "many." I'm not including you. Promise!


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.