To:  Yellowstone National Park Visitor Services
From:  Bruce Jensen - MFF
RE: Combined Length Limit for Slough Creek CG
Sent November 21, 2004

I am a long-time visitor to Yellowstone and, in particular, to the Slough Creek Campground.  In fact, this next season will be my 20th consecutive camping and fishing trip to Slough Creek. 

I am APPALLED that Yellowstone administrators and planners would even consider putting a 30' combined length limit on vehicles and trailers at the Slough Creek Campground.  It doesn't take a brain surgeon to immediately recognize that this proposal is completely idiotic. 

Let me cite a simple example: A 30' class A motor home, or one of those RENT ME wide-body RV rental units would be just fine, while a standard or compact truck/SUV pulling a small 16' camping trailer would be disallowed.  You obviously have no idea how many small trailers are destined for Slough Creek each summer and, more importantly, how many that would not be able to camp there any longer if this silly rule is enacted. 

Just about any compact truck or SUV will measure 15-18 feet in length, and a VERY small trailer would come in at 14-16 feet from ball to end. That means that you'd have to have a trailer that was about 8' long plus the three feet for the yoke and hitch, as well as a small and VERY short tow vehicle in order to be under 30' total combined length. This does not accomplish what I think you're trying to accomplish.  Instead it prohibits tiny trailers pulled by just about any size vehicle from camping at the creek. 

I am extremely disappointed that you would even consider such an unfair and useless rule, and I oppose it 2000%.  I ask and expect a timely and complete response to this message and a status report on this issue. I hope you will do everything necessary to defeat this proposal immediately.

A Concerned and Frequent Yellowstone Visitor,

Bruce Jensen
Montana Fly Fisherman
Friends of Slough Creek
Nye, MT

Response to November 21, 2004 E-Mail to Yellowstone National Park
Received November 23, 2004
From:  Leigh Anne Dunworth - YNP
RE: Combined Length Limit for Slough Creek CG

November 23, 2004

Dear Mr. Jensen:

I am responding to your 11/22/04 e-mail to our Visitor Services Office regarding the proposed vehicle length limit at Slough Creek Campground.  We understand your concern.  In April 2001, the environmental assessment (EA) for the Slough Creek Campground Rehabilitation incorrectly stated that the preferred alternative would include a "combined 30-foot length limit."  We received a number of comments specific to this mistake in the EA and we regret that this information was communicated incorrectly.  In the preferred alternative, a combined length limit of 30 feet would be permitted.  However, no length limit has been instituted at this time.

 As to the status of this project, it is on hold, due to other park priorities.  When and if the project becomes active again, we will let you know, as we realize you have a special interest in Slough Creek Campground.  We have your past e-mail messages and comment letters on file and you remain on our mailing list.

Thank you again for your interest in Yellowstone National Park.

Leigh Anne Dunworth
Outdoor Recreation Planner
Planning, Compliance, and Landscape Architecture
Yellowstone National Park
 

Response to 11/23/04 E-Mail to Yellowstone National Park 
Sent November 23, 2004
From:  Bruce Jensen - MFF
RE: Combined Length Limit for Slough Creek CG

PLEASE NOTE:  Leigh Anne Dunworth - YNP responded to this message on 11/29/04.  Her Responses are in White

Dear Leigh Anne,

Thank you so much for your prompt response to my e-mail.  This sends me a very good signal, namely that the Park is doing a much better job of responding to visitor concerns.  I appreciate this very much and I am relieved to know that no length limit will be imposed at this time, and that there was an error in the EA regarding this point.

Even though I think I understand what you are saying, I have a few clarification questions that beg your response.

In your E-Mail you said:

"In April 2001, the environmental assessment (EA) for the Slough Creek Campground Rehabilitation incorrectly stated that the preferred alternative would include a "combined 30-foot length limit."  We received a number of comments specific to this mistake in the EA and we regret that this information was communicated incorrectly."

Does this mean that the length limit was not supposed to be a part the EA at all?

YNP Response:  The length limit was proposed as part of the preferred alternative in the EA.

Is there a different combined length limit in the corrected EA?  If so, what is it?
Could you clarify these questions for me please?

YNP Response:  An errata sheet will be prepared along with responses to comments made during the public review period.  The errata sheet will clarify the misstatement made in the EA concerning the length limit. These steps in the process were delayed due to other park priorities.

After I sent my E-Mail message, I realized that if I was going to complain about a length limit proposal, I should offer at least one suggestion for your future consideration.

Since there are a variety of campsites at Slough Creek there should be no length limits on most sites, however, there could be specific length limits for a small number of specific campsites.  As an example, sites 10 & 11 can accommodate a larger trailer plus a tow vehicle, since there are two parking spaces designated for each site.  Other sites along the lower end of the campground offer some of the same possibilities and can easily work out well for larger towed units. We camped in site 7 for a time last year and found it to be perfect for our small trailer and vehicle.  Most visitors will drive through and peruse the sites to pick out one that will fit their specific needs, so strict length designations for every site are definitely not necessary.

Our first year at Slough Creek was 1985.  We tented for many years along the creek in one of the upper campsites.  Since then we've only missed one year at the campground and continue to enjoy Slough Creek each summer as a rendezvous point for many friends from all across the country.  Last year we decided that we'd slept on the ground long enough, and opted to purchase a small pop-up hard-side camping trailer.  The living space in our trailer is only about 15' in length, but when you add the 3' for the tongue on the unit, it measures about 18'.  We have a full-size SUV as a tow vehicle and
it measures about the same length.  We have a small trailer.  Our total camper and tow vehicle package is around 36' in length.  There are just the two of us, so that's why I was so concerned.  If we couldn't camp at Slough, who could?  Families who must have a larger trailer in order to visit and enjoy the campground would have been completely excluded.  The older you get, the more attractive a camping trailer becomes.  This is evidenced by the huge growth in RV sales over the past decade.  In fact, campers who use a trailer do much less damage to the riparian zone and the campsites than do tenters.  You only have to observe camping activities for a short time to notice a big difference.

In the suggestion department, I would offer this request:  If there is a "mistake" in the EA as you stated in your E-Mail, please notify your webmaster and correct the error ASAP.  This will eliminate E-Mail messages like mine that were based on the erroneous information posted at the site.

YNP Response:  Thank you for your suggestion.  Though the "mistake" will be included in the errata sheet that will be prepared, I will ask our webmaster to make a note on our web page.  Or perhaps because the project has been put on hold, it should be removed from the website since it is causing confusion.

Also, I would urge the Park to be much more open and aggressive in soliciting input and response from frequent campground visitors far in advance regarding proposals for changes to campgrounds in Yellowstone.  The campground pay slips should be expanded to include an e-mail address, street address, and phone number.  This information could then be entered into a database of visitors.  There's a great mailing list from which to elicit comments and ideas.  Seek input from the people who use the Park facilities the most, people who really value the Yellowstone experience, and campers who do much to support the salaries of all who work in the Park.

YNP Response:  Thank you again for your recommendations.  They will be considered along with other public comments received.

Thanks again Leigh Anne for responding so quickly to my concerns.

My wife and I hope to meet you in person at Slough Creek!

Bruce Jensen
Montana Fly Fisherman

Response to 11/29/04 E-Mail from Leigh Anne Dunworth - Yellowstone National Park 
Sent November 29, 2004
FROM:  Bruce Jensen - MFF
RE: Combined Length Limit for Slough Creek CG

Hello again Leigh Anne,

Thank you for writing back so quickly.  I appreciate your efforts, but there are still some concerns that remain.

In my last e-mail, which is a part of this forward, I asked:  "Does this mean that the length limit was not supposed to be a part the EA at all?

You said it was a "mistake", but you also said that:  "The length limit was proposed as part of the preferred alternative in the EA."

I already knew that from reading your e-mail letter, but, don't you see, this doesn't answer my question, so I will ask again.  Does this mean that the length limit was NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A PART OF THE EA AT ALL?

Another question from my last e-mail that still remains to be clarified is: "Is there a different combined length limit in the corrected EA?  If so, what is it?"

And, you said:  "An errata sheet will be prepared along with responses to comments made during the public review period.  The errata sheet will clarify the misstatement made in the EA concerning the length limit. These steps in the process were delayed due to other park priorities."

OK!  So I will ask again:  What specific "clarification" is going to be posted in the "errata" sheet regarding combined length limits, if any, for Slough Creek Campground?  If the "sheet" is being prepared, the contents must be known to someone at this point in time.  What specifically does it contain regarding any combined length limit proposal for Slough Creek, AND when will the new "errata" sheet be available to the "Friends of Slough Creek" and any other interested parties?  I am also requesting an e-mail, or hard copy, of this "errata" information in it's entirety, as soon as it is available.  You said that I was "on your mailing list" so I'll be looking for a copy.

Thank you for requesting that the "mistake" regarding the combined length limit for Slough Creek Campground be noted on the official Yellowstone web site in the area where it appears.  This would be a reasonable solution.  Taking down the entire document is NOT a good idea, especially if the program may be "re-activated" a some point in the future.

After sharing your last e-mail online with the "Friends of Slough Creek", there was a very large response, and total support, for my continued queries and search for clarification in this matter.  It is an important issue for so many faithful visitors to Yellowstone.

I have no interest in writing and re-writing these requests, and nit-picking at every question or answer, but I do expect a clear and concise response to my concerns when I do write.  I would only ask that you please answer my questions fully and completely, and not skirt the specific questions I have asked with incomplete or ambiguous information.

One other concern relates to the statement you made that I am "on your mailing list".  Apparently this is a never-used list, because I have never received any e-mail or hard-copy from Yellowstone Park, other than responses to e-mail that I have recently written to you, and I have been camping and fishing in the Park for 20 years.  I truly want to be a part of helping to maintain the quality of the Slough Creek Campground and Yellowstone Park experience.  It is a very special treasure indeed!  I believe that input from the people who value and visit this place most should be given top priority.  Your help is needed.  We all benefit from honest interaction.

I know this is your desire as well, and I thank you in advance for your assistance.

If you are unable to completely answer my questions, please do the next best thing, and direct me to someone who can...and will.

Sincerely,

Bruce Jensen
Montana Fly Fisherman
Friends of Slough Creek

RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
 

May 20, 2001

Planning Office
P.O. Box 168
Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190

Subject:  Slough Creek Campground Rehabilitation Environmental Assessment

As a Montanan, an avid outdoorswoman and angler, and a longtime friend of the Slough Creek Campground, I feel compelled to respond to the Park’s proposed changes contained in the Environmental Assessment. 

  I was first introduced to Slough Creek in the mid 80’s by a friend who was employed by a local Cooke City outfitter and since my very first visit to the Campground, Slough Creek has become my “home”; a place of pristine natural beauty, a place where the weather can challenge the survivor instinct in us all.  It was one of the few places in the Park that had remained untouchable---a place where the elements, both good and bad, could touch off a spark of magic in one’s very soul. It is this spark that continues to bring back the Friends of Slough Creek year after year from all parts of the country.  It is for this very reason, that I favor taking no action and strongly oppose Alternatives 2 and 3 of the Environmental Assessment that, by admission of its own contributors, will disturb previously undisturbed acreage in the Campground.  Since “seasonal flooding would occur in all alternatives” with “continued degradation of campsites by natural water erosion” (See Page 47, Cumulative Effects, All Alternatives, Paragraph 2), I do not see the value or need for the proposed changes associated with these two alternatives.  On the contrary, I can only envision the obvious and significant ramifications to the ecosystem associated with construction and ground moving (i.e.: the $8,000+ kiosk that was erected last summer).  Is this the best use of the money that is available by the Yellowstone Foundation?  I think not.    

I would like to address and comment on information that was contained in Environmental Assessment which, I believe, was misleading, vague, or inconsistent with the information that was presented in the official Yellowstone Park website.  I request that you please respond to the questions that are being asked and that your response be sent to me prior to June 15, 2001.

Page 4, INTRODUCTION, Paragraph 2, Lines 2 through 5

“Comments from various federal, state, and local agencies; public-interest groups; local communities; and the general public were sought through a mailed scoping brochure that was sent out on September 3, 1997, for a 60-day comment period.  Scoping brochures were also available to campers at Slough Creek Campground.”

Comment:  Please specify what federal, state, and local agencies, public-interest groups, and communities were contacted.  Please provide a copy of the scoping brochure that was sent to each organization.  I have camped extensively at Slough Creek for 14 of the past 15 summers and had registered each day at the registration station.  I have never seen a single informational display or scoping brochure about the proposed renovation project, and upon inquiry with other annual Slough Creek visitors, they, too, have never seen the scoping brochure.  It wasn’t until this past August (near the end of the heavy camping season) that I heard that a posting was suddenly available at the Campground.  Even though an out-of-state friend had requested a copy of the brochure, none was sent to her by anyone on the Planning Committee. To state that this information was readily available to the general public since 1997 is untrue and because of the misleading nature of this information, it should not be included in the Environmental Assessment as fact.

Page 4, INTRODUCTION, Paragraph 3, last sentence

“A total of thirty-nine comments were received during three years of scoping”.

Comment:  It is very difficult for anyone to comment on a project that they know nothing about.  Judging from all the maps that were produced in October last year for inclusion in the Environmental Assessment, the dollars spent on the professional opinions of the Assessment contributors, and the cost of the kiosk that was touted at the Yellowstone Foundation website, thousands of dollars have already been spent on this project, but it is my perception, that little to no monies were spent on securing public comment.  This was a basic textbook assignment for anyone in communications or public relations and could have even been handled by a college intern at no cost whatsoever.  Consider the following information.  July and August are the two heaviest camping months at Slough Creek producing 62 days of information. Campers are required to provide his or her name, address, and vehicle license plate number on their campsite registration slip.  The average campsite probably contains at least 2 adult campers with an average stay of 2 days.  This information alone would have been sufficient to produce a bare minimum target audience of 3596 people that could have responded to your scoping brochure over the 4-year period (’97-’00).  You had all the information at your disposal and yet you elected not to use it. Why?  This information also would have even allowed you to weed out 1-day visitors and concentrate your efforts on repeat campers.  Keep in mind that this example only covers 2 months of the summer.  The number of respondents would be significantly higher if you included the months of June and September over the same period.  It is my perception that the Planning Committee has done its best to keep this project out of the public eye including burying the information deep within the Yellowstone Park website.  Having used computers since the sixties, it took me   extensive time to locate the information related to the  Project.  This was the path:

Nps.gov/yell/index.htm
Click “in depth”
Official Website of Yellowstone National Park (nps.gov/yell/home.htm)
Click Technical (Technical Info from our scientists & specialists)
(nps.gov/yell/technical/index.htm)
Click on “Planning”
Park Planning (nps.gov/yell/technical/planning/index.htm)
Click on “Slough Creek Renovation Project Information”

It is at this site that you are greeted by a picnic table that is underwater, a photo that, at best, is misleading to the general population except for those in the West who are familiar with the annual spring runoff.  Runoff was severe everywhere in Montana in 1996 and 1997 and to infer that Slough Creek is unique in this situation is grossly misleading to those who live outside the area.  Why was the Renovation Project located in the technical area of the Yellowstone website?  I had to investigate every single link in order to find the appropriate information.  One would almost think that it was the Park’s intention to hide this information from the public instead of providing a link to the Project from the Yellowstone Park Campgrounds site.  The only other reasonable answer would be that the Park Planning Committee did not think that their proposed changes to the Campground were significant enough to warrant taking competent and professional measures to solicit public comment.  Judging from the long list of contributors and the expense involved for their professional opinions, I find it very strange that the Planning Committee did not exert the same time, energy and expense to solicit comments and suggestions from the very people who have visited Slough Creek time and time again over the years.

Page 5, BACKGROUND

“Slough Creek is open mid May through the end of October.” 

Comment:  This statement of basic information is in direct conflict with the Renovation Web site which states that the campground is open mid May through mid November.

The web site for the Slough Creek Project also refers to the project as the “Slough Creek Renovation Project”, and yet, the Environmental Assessment calls it the “Rehabilitation

Project”.  Perhaps you can explain the semantic name change for the project and why basic points of campground information are in conflict with each other.  One has to wonder about the background of the individuals who are connected with the project if they do not even know with any measure of accuracy as to when the campground is open to the public.

Page 9, PURPOSE AND NEED

“Many campsites in Slough Creek Campground are located along the creek.  Heavy spring runoff from snow melt left most stream side campsites under water in 1996 and 1997.”

Comment:  The only sites located directly along the creek bank are 2, 3, 4,5,7 and 8.  Site 2 has been unusable and thus closed due to a tree that had fallen a few years ago and had taken out much of the bank.  Thus, there are only 5 of the 29 sites (or 17%) that are directly along the creek.  17% can hardly be called many and as I indicated above, 1996 and 1997 were two years of heavy spring runoff but it should not be inferred that this has become the norm for Slough Creek.

Page 10 PURPOSE AND NEED, Paragraph 1

The Environment Assessment states that the campsites were fully evaluated during the summers of 1999 and 2000 and yet the only proposed changes include the removal of campsites and disturbing the previously undisturbed natural environment by constructing and moving campsites.  This undoubtedly will cost thousands of dollars and could be better spent on addressing the real needs of the Campground which are itemized as follows:

1)      Provide more toilet paper in the vaults.

2)      Provide more bear boxes and bear-proof garbage cans at campground.

3)      Drill 2 good artesian wells with potable drinking water.

4)      Enforce fishing and camping regulations which has become almost nonexistent by Park     rangers. (for sake of trout, campers and future anglers at Slough Creek) 

5)      Post bear siting notices at trail heads.  This used to be a general practice by Rangers but has disappeared.  (A kiosk does little when there is imminent danger and children are running up the trails alone in shorts and thongs).  Slough Creek is not the San Diego Zoo, Central Park or the local trout pond concession, and for the Park to dismiss the seriousness of this issue and enforcement of its own regulations is not only irresponsible but jeopardizes the safety of every camper as well as the local wildlife that live in the area.

6.   Provide paint and tools for the maintenance of picnic tables and parking bumpers.

Page 10, PURPOSE AND NEED, Paragraph 2

“An existing horse trail, located in close proximity to several campsites, has created some safety concerns for campers and outfitters.  The horse trail crossing may be relocated in the future, if a suitable stream crossing can be found.”

Comment:  Over the years, this horse crossing has been widened and campsites 5 and 7 have been moved further away from the crossing in order to accommodate the outfitters.

As a general rule, late spring runoffs have always produced swift flowing water and strong currents that have created extremely hazardous situations for everyone; outfitters, inexperience “sports”, and campers alike not to mention the horses that become easily spooked not by the campers but by the strong currents which force the horses to tenuously maneuver through rushing water and submerged rocks and boulders.

Since the Yellowstone Foundation is already planning the renovation of the Wagon Trail up to the Meadows why not close down the horse crossing at Slough Creek Campground and let the outfitters go up the Wagon Trail.  The trail is in very close proximity to the outfitters shack, horse trailers, and their vehicles and would alleviate much of the problems associated with the crossing at the Campground.  By using this trail, the Park could eliminate any camper/outfitter “situations” and rangers would be in a better position to monitor outfitter permits and fishing licenses and see to it that antlers are not leaving the area in client back packs.

Page 37 NATURAL RESOURCES, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS

According to the Environmental Assessment .26 acres will be disturbed and .04 acres will be rehabilitated under Alternative #2 and .06 acres will be disturbed under Alternative #3 with .61 acres to be rehabilitated.  Under both alternatives the campground host site is to be moved to the existing Campsite #6.  I have to question whether any of the contributors or any members of the planning committee have spent any more than a few hours at the Slough Creek Campground.  If they had, they most assuredly would know about the gusty and strong south westerly wind that generally prevails each afternoon creating a dust bowl at the upper east end of the campground.  If it is your intent to drive away volunteer camp hosts, then moving the host site to #6 is a fine idea.  Eating dust every afternoon would drive anyone away and if you had taken the initiative to check with previous campers of site #6 or the previous campground hosts you would know that what I say is true.  The location of the new kiosk with cars stopping and starting and kicking up the dust is sure to make a bad problem worse.

Page 38, WILDLIFE

I find it most peculiar that there is absolutely no discussion about the decreasing population of the coyote since the wolf’s reintroduction into the Park ecosystem.  It is especially notable in the Slough Creek drainage where coyotes were once very prevalent.

Can you please explain this oversight?

Observations and Additional Questions

I find it quite interesting that the Environmental Assessment provides only one paragraph (7 lines of text) to explain Alternative #1.  Alternative #3 contains 2 paragraphs (8 lines of text).  Under Alternative #2, the Park has used an entire page to justify and rationalize its need to disturb previously undisturbed ground in order to preserve the environment, and make things safer for campers and outfitters; and yet, under all three alternatives, soil erosion will continue along the banks.  To close sites 3, 4, and/or 5 is absurd.  It is very naïve, indeed, on the part of the contributors, to think that the creek bank will be improved by closing down these sites.  Anyone who has or works with children, would quickly note that this area would quickly become an inviting playground for children and their parents to swim, wade, fish, throw rocks, make sandcastles, and release bodily fluids/matter into the water.  How would this impact the riparian aspects of the stream?

The cover letter that accompanied the Environmental Assessment was signed by an individual (whose name is not provided in type and the signature is not legible) for Michael V. Finley.  Who is T. A. __________?  What is his position and what are his credentials?

Who are the members of the Planning Committee?  What are their names, addresses, and credentials?

At the onset of the project, a 60-day scoping period was conducted.  After three years of project revision, why is the public only given 30 days to respond to an environmental assessment that was suppose to be released last fall?

Approximately 20% of the Environmental Assessment contributors are no longer with Yellowstone National Park including the original Outdoor Recreation Planner, Outdoor Recreation Planner Assistant, and the Landscape Architect.  How long has the new Planner and Landscape Architect been in their positions and what are his/her credentials?

Who was responsible for the erection of the kiosk? 

What guidelines/park policies are used and followed to determine whether or not public comment needs to be solicited before a project is undertaken.  What specific policies and procedures are used to solicit public comment?

I am quite saddened to think that my “special home” may be disturbed by individuals unknown to me.  I will be at Slough Creek on June 30^th and sincerely hope and encourage you or someone connected with the project to visit with the Friends of Slough Creek about the proposed renovation.  I believe that as long time users of the Campground, we have much to contribute and your attendance is imperative.  I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Paula L. Jensen
1432 Avenue B
Billings, MT 59102

December 19, 2000

United States Department of the Interior
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
PO Box 168
Yellowstone National Park
Wyoming 82190

IN REPLY REFER TO: (D18)YELL

DEC 19, 2000

Mr. Bruce Jensen
1432 Avenue B
Billings, Montana 59102

Dear Mr. Jensen:

After reading the Friends of Slough Creek web page and your letter of November 21, 2000, I would like to answer some of your questions and hopefully alleviate some of your concerns regarding the Slough Creek Campground Rehabilitation Project.

Public scoping for the Slough Creek Campground Rehabilitation environmental assessment initially began in the fall of 1997. Comments from various federal, state, and local agencies, public-interest groups, local communities, and the general public were sought through a mailed scoping brochure that was sent out on September 3, 1997, for a 60-day comment period. Scoping brochures were also available to campers at Slough Creek Campground during that time.

In 1998, the scope of the project changed significantly from the variety of alternatives considered in the 1997 scoping letter. This is where misconceptions may lie. The 1997 scoping brochure stated that "Up to 18 campsites could be removed from the floodplain." Some or all of these sites could be relocated to the open sagebrush areas along existing campground roads or along a new road loop. As many as eight sites could be relocated as new walk-in sites beyond the west end of the current campground area." In the forthcoming environmental assessment, these specific ideas will be noted as "considered, but rejected," and new alternatives will be presented. Please be assured that the park is not planning major changes to campsites at Slough Creek Campground.

In 1999, an informational display and new scoping brochure were posted at Slough Creek Campground to continue the scoping process. The Slough Creek Campground host also posted scoping brochures during a portion of the 2000 season. A scoping letter and comment form were posted on the Internet in 1999 and 2000. Approximately 40 comments have been received over the past three years of scoping. Comments most often made by the public included: "Remove and relocate the campsites that are too close to Slough Creek," "Don't change the primitive character of the campground," and "Keep the current number of sites."

I am sorry that none of the members of your group saw the scoping brochures when you were at Slough Creek Campground. Though the formal scoping period has ended, we welcome public comments through the entire planning process.

Since its establishment before 1935, Slough Creek Campground has been very popular with park visitors. Slough Creek Campground is the smallest developed campground in Yellowstone, where campers enjoy isolation and solitude. A mix of campground sizes and types is desirable, and providing small, less developed camping experiences serves the needs of the variety of campers that come to the park. We want to maintain this experience and ensure the primitive character of Slough Creek Campground.

A visitor expressed the following:

                      The charm of Slough Creek lies in its remoteness, its unpaved
                      road, its quietness, its lack of electricity and generators, and flush
                      toilets. This is first and foremost a campground for people who love
                      the Park, the streams, the fish, the meadows, the wildlife; it is the
                      last camp left for people who want to meet the Park at least half-
                      way on its own terms.

The interdisciplinary team working on this project feels the same. There will be no electricity, flush toilets, or paved roads.  Slough Creek Campground was designed and built during a time when there was less concern about impacts to riparian areas. Today, campsites would not be sited in such close proximity to a water source because of impacts on natural resources and sanitation concerns. You are correct in saying that erosion of the riverbank is the result of spring runoff, but use by campers and anglers also causes degradation, as evidenced by numerous social trails in the campground.

A number of natural and cultural resource inventories have been completed for Slough Creek Campground, including surveys for flood frequency, wetlands, rare plants, and archeology. Data from these surveys will help the park formulate alternatives for the environmental assessment.

With regard to your concerns about "the admission of larger hard-sided RVs" and "allowing larger hard-sided RVs to rent space" in the meadow area, the park is considering the institution of a length limit for Slough Creek Campground. The campground was not originally designed to accommodate large recreational vehicles and we are not planning to make changes to accommodate them. This issue will be addressed in the environmental assessment

The new registration kiosk was funded through the Yellowstone Park Foundation. The Yellowstone Park Foundation is a non-profit organization created by a group of concerned citizens, to preserve, protect, and enhance Yellowstone National Park and to enrich each visitor's experience. The purpose of the new kiosk is to provide bear awareness information at a campground that is ranked as having the highest quality grizzly bear habitat with the most recorded bear activity in the park.

With reference to the site selection for the new kiosk, a group composed of campground rangers, landscape architects, and park planners selected the location for the kiosk. We felt this central location would allow more visitors to view the bear awareness display, while combining camper services and registration information. In addition, the previous bulletin board/registration station was in a state of disrepair and needed to be replaced.

Thank you for expressing your concerns. Your comments will be considered with others we have received during the planning process and your name will be added to our mailing list. The environmental assessment should be released for public review sometime next spring. We look forward to receiving your comments. 

Your interest in Yellowstone National Park and Slough Creek Campground is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Michael V. Finley
Superintendent

cc: Yellowstone Park Foundation

RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

12/15/00

From: Paul Reynolds 
To: yell_visitor_services@nps.gov 
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 5:14 PM Subject: Slough Creek

Dear Yellowstone Administrators:

I am writing in regard to the possible plans to close down some creekside tent sites at Slough Creek campsite, and to expand the site accommodations to include large hard-sided RVs. As a camper and angler who has enjoyed the campsite facility, I urge you to leave well enough alone.

In my view, the kiosk was a mistake. The attraction and wonder of Slough Creek is that it is still reasonably primitive, and off the beaten path. To change this in the name of "progress," to alter the site so as to increase foot traffic, vehicular traffic and fishing pressure is to show callous disregard for the natural values of this area, which is in truth a Crown Jewel of Yellowstone.

As well as being an active outdoorsman and regular Yellowstone Visitor, I am a self-syndicated outdoor columnist and broadcaster. I also publish a monthly outdoor newspaper in Maine. I remain deeply interested in any forthcoming plans to change the Slough Creek campsite facility. If necessary I also plan to communicate my concerns to contacts that I have within the new Bush Administration, as well as to Maine's senior U. S. Senator Olympia Snowe.

Please make an effort to keep me advised so that I may in turn also keep our many readers informed of the status of the Slough Creek camping facility .

Sincerely

V. Paul Reynolds 
300 Sawyer Rd 
Hampden, Maine 04444

paul@sporting journal.com

fax 207 862 2160

RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

10/27/00

Dear Friends of Slough Creek,

Although I have not read any of the info, or seen the impact statement.  Here are some comments from an Easterner who has visited and heard comments from other East Coast people.

Most people I tell about my wonderful wilderness experience at Slough Creek are surprised. They have chosen not to go to Yellowstone because all they hear about are the crowds, and traffic. I saw plenty of both not far from where we camped. An intelligent planner would not try to make Yellowstone "big business".  Expanding and modernizing Slough Creek is a crime against our heritage. My fishing and camping experiences at Slough Creek have changed my life.  Human beings need more places on this earth that are inaccessible, and inconvenient. Please don't bring showers, and electricity to Slough Creek. If  the Yellowstone Planners were really concerned about environmental impact they would realize the flawed logic of closing a couple of riverside campsites, while opening an entire field to allow big RV's and thus much more foot traffic, not to mention greater pressure on the fish population.

I will e-mail you an essay I wrote about Yellowstone that appeared in The Maine Times.
Thanks for looking out for Slough Creek!

Christine Force
Scarborough, Maine