NPCA officials are concerned that a memo will muzzle parks from voicing concerns regarding development on adjacent federal lands, such as this oil well near Canyonlands National Park/Rebecca Latson file
Editor's note: This story has been updated to clarify that parks don't need to initially provide their finalized comments to NPS headquarters, but are required to outline "any substantive issues or concerns raised in NPS comments" on a project that might impact their resources, and that they "should be prepared to provide the comments to (NPS headquarters) upon request."
A memo that acting National Park Service Director David Vela sent out recently has raised concerns that park officials in the field will be muzzled when it comes to expressing concerns about energy and infrastructure development on lands adjacent to their parks.
The 3-page memo (attached below) sent in mid-August requires that Park Service comments on neighboring development projects be reviewed internally before being submitted "to ensure they are within NPS's statutory authorities and special expertise."
Vela stressed that this process be followed "on other agencies' proposals and projects that relate to DOI priorities, including energy development and associated infrastructure, utility related infrastructure, broadband or telecommunications access, access to park resources or recreational opportunities, and wildlife corridors."
Notifying personnel in the Park Service's Washington, D.C., headquarters, he continued, "is needed to ensure that NPS comments receive appropriate senior-level awareness and coordination."
Under Vela's directive, parks are required to notify, when possible, Washington staff three weeks in advance of filing comments on a project. That notification should provide "a summary of any substantive issues or concerns raised in the NPS comments. ... Parks should be prepared to provide the comments to (NPS headquarters) upon request."
He also pointed out that the administation's efforts to "streamline environmental reviews" is putting a crunch on agencies' ability to comment on projects in a timely fashion.
"Review and comment times for other agencies' plans and proposals are shorter and, in some cases, may prevent NPS from being able to meet agency deadlines," Vela noted.
Though the memo hews closely to a similar directive crafted by the Obama administration regarding how park officials comment on "non-Interior" projects that could impact park lands, this one focuses on projects on other Interior Department lands, such as those managed by the Bureau of Land Management. BLM has been tasked by the Trump administration with increasing energy development from public lands.
The new guidelines raise questions of whether Park Service comments on projects such as expansion of a coal mine on BLM lands near Bryce Canyon National Park, or oil and gas development near Dinosaur National Monument, both in Utah, would have been reined in had this policy been in effect.
In June 2017, Dinosaur Superintendent Mark Foust, in a letter to the BLM during its scoping period concerning oil and gas leases near the monument, pointed out that air quality studies have shown that "oil and gas activity in the Uintah Basin is a primary contributor to these wintertime ozone exceedances."
Noting that energy exploration releases additional pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter, the superintendent added that "(T)hese pollutants can contribute to visibility degradation in national parks, adverse effects to human health, which is a concern for park visitors and staff, and adverse ecosystem effects in parks from excess nitrogen and sulfur deposition and ozone impacts to vegetation. Ozone and visibilty are of significant concern for" Dinosaur.
Back in 2012, as the BLM was considering a coal mine not far from Bryce Canyon, then-Superintendent Jeff Bradybaugh commented to a reporter that, "These national parks are forever, so we have to be very cautious about incremental degradation over time.”
Whether the new guidance will also affect NPS comments on developments on state or private lands remains to be seen. Back in 2018, Theodore Roosevelt National Park officials in North Dakota voiced concerns over efforts to build an oil refinery several miles from the park's south entrance.
Under upset conditions, which include system malfunctions or the abnormal release of emissions when capture units are offline, "emissions of SO2 could be 500 times greater, emissions of acid gas (H2S) could be 50 times greater, and emissions of NOx could be 12.5 times greater during these periods compared to normal operation," the Park Service's technical comments noted.
"While the NPS air analyses based on annualized flaring emissions did not indicate significant park impacts, we request that the ND DoH evaluate the impacts and possible mitigation of upset conditions when emissions could dramatically increase at the proposed refinery," Theodore Roosevelt Superintendent Wendy Ross noted in her comments to the North Dakota Department of Health, which is reviewing Meridian Energy Group's permit application.
"We are also concerned about significant park air quality impacts during upset conditions at the proposed refinery," she added. "These conditions and their impact have not been well-characterized. We request additional information, modeling, and analysis of air emissions during upset conditions."
Vela's directive was quickly criticized by Theresa Pierno, president and CEO of the National Parks Conservation Association, who said "this guidance is just another way the Trump administration is actively working to silence park staff and their expertise."
“The administration is touting this guidance as a way to provide coordination and engagement between federal agencies," she added, "but in reality, this is nothing more than an intimidation tactic, deterring park experts on the front lines from expressing views that might contradict the administration’s aggressive pro-fossil fuels energy policy. This unprecedented memo will infringe on park staffs’ ability to provide expert comments on projects put forth by other agencies that could have damaging impacts on parks, hindering the Park Service from fulfilling their duties to protect park resources."
Jeremy Barnum, the Park Service's chief spokesman, told the Washington Post, which obtained Vela's memo, that the policy was nothing new.
“The memo was sent to provide common sense guidance to National Park Service managers on how best to provide consistent, productive, and timely engagement in other agencies’ proposals and projects that may affect parks and the visitor experience," Barnum wrote in an email to the paper.
Still, there are some in the Park Service who fear this is just another step to limiting their input on projects that might adversely impact their parks.
Some have expressed beliefs that they have been discouraged from commenting on projects. Requiring parks to submit their comments to top NPS officials for approval is seen as a way to ensure that each DOI agency ‘stay in their lane’ and not get in the way of another.
Comments
Transparency and truth are the two things most feared by this administration. No real surprise here.
This may shock you but most businesses do NOT allow all of their employees to make company policy statements to the public. I see absolutely no difference in how the NPS should be managed. If, however, you are the owner, operator of your own business you can say whatever you want to say, to whomever you want. Otherwise you are an employee - no more, no less. If a park manager doesn't like that arrangement they should be self employed.
Sorry in this case I side with the Acting NPS Director,. Thank you for your service Theresa Pierno, perhaps it's time for you to step down.
Jim, to play devil's advocate, isn't the NPS charged with preserving the parks for the American public, not a specific political party/philosophy? Doesn't it differ from a traditional business, which certainly should operate as you outlined?
100% with you Jim. An organization public or private can't have 100s of competing mouth pieces.
Actually I don't think so. For an example you will notice in most news conferences by public servants in the event of an emergancy or policy change by police, fire, FEMA etc you have an identified spokesperson that is authorized to speak. Yet they too maybe charged with serve and protect responsibilities. Unfortunately there are some in public office, I.E. Washington, who have there own adgendas and therein lies the problem. That is not how it SHOULD work, however. The NP Traveler and yourself, however I strongly believe should be able to freely advocate for their beliefs regarding the NPS because the employee/employer relationship doesn't exist. I don't think you would want me sending a disenting opinion on the NP Traveler letterhead.
Where do you draw the line? Should all park press releases be vetted through Washington, D.C. (Some are, but not most from what I can tell).
We already have seen that climate change is a very touchy issue with the current administration, with NPS and USGS field staff being told to refer questions to Washington. Questions seemingly as innocuous as why parks haven't held public comment periods on ebikes are routed to Washington.
Most recently, NPS archaeologists couldn't talk about archaeological resources in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument that were in danger of being damaged or destroyed by construction of the border wall. And, of course, there was the matter early this year when the Joshua Tree National Park superintendent was quickly muzzled from talking about damage to his park during the partial government shutdown.
What harm is done by providing accurate information from the field?
All this runs the risk of being contorted for political reasons, with the possibility of misinformation being dispensed. When does speaking with one voice morph into propaganda?
Of course not. If a park road is closed because of road repair, fire, accident, etc of course local Park services should be able to speak. When you get into policy or opinions I stand by my comments. If you want an example that gives clarity, please send me some of the NP Traveler letterhead and envelopes and I will send to my media contacts a letter stating that I think it would be advantagious to the NPS to use public lands for commercial purposes if the revenue generated was used to paydown the huge backlog of NPS projects. Would you be OK with that or would you "muzzle" that idea. See what I mean? On the other hand if YOU see a misuse of public land, please speak up!
I am ready to let it be. We have a difference of perspective and I can assure you it doesn't diminish the value I place on the work of the NP Traveler and specifically your contribution.
But the difference in your example of speaking for the Traveler is that you don't work for the Traveler. Park superintendents and regional directors are professionals employed by the NPS because of their ability and judgment, and I would think they should be allowed to exercise that. They're smart enough to know not to go too far against those in Washington, whereas I don't think politicians of any stripe can always be expected to tell the truth without a little, or a lot, of spin.