Back to Chapter 2: Challenges

Feral horses at Cape Lookout National Seashore
by Sue Stuska, Ed.D.

What can the National Park Service do about air quality problems?
by Christine Shaver

National Park Service prevails in court; environmental impact statement on schedule
by John D. Varley with Ann Deutch

National Natural Landmarks Program: Up and running ... and raring to go
by Steve Gibbons

Challenges--News Briefs

Home

by Jake Hoogland

The National Park Service was the defendant in several lawsuits in 1999 stemming from violations of the National Environmental Policy Act. Known as NEPA, the act directs federal agencies to follow a systematic and scientific approach to assessing environmental impacts when proposing actions that may adversely affect the environment.

In the case of Sierra Club v. Slater et al., the National Park Service proposed to construct new lodging in Yosemite National Park, California. A 1997 flood had damaged lodging near the Merced River in Yosemite Valley, and the park proposed to remove the damaged structures and replace them with new construction outside of the 100-year floodplain. The park issued an environmental assessment (EA) that dismissed the possibility of relocating the facilities outside the park because the project would not conform to park planning documents that had already been adopted. Later, the park released a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) regarding the proposed construction. The federal court ruled that earlier environmental impact statements (EIS) did not "relieve the NPS of its obligation to conduct an EIS..., because the cumulative environmental concerns raised by the lodge plan ... [were] not ... previously addressed.... The Park Service failed to acknowledge that ... damage caused by the 1997 flood gave rise to new circumstances not contemplated by the prior planning documents." From this experience the Park Service learned that generalized planning documents may not provide the specific and detailed environmental analysis needed for many proposed actions. Additionally, cumulative effects arising from multiple planning projects need to be addressed comprehensively. Finally, conditions that have changed since earlier planning documents were written may require a fresh look at alternatives.

A second case revolved around the proposal to construct a parking lot on the Going-to-the-Sun Road in Glacier National Park, Montana (Coalition for Canyon Preservation v. Babbitt et al.). Proposed to reduce pedestrian traffic across the road, construction of the parking lot would require removing a portion of a rare and vulnerable forest. The park prepared an EA and later issued a FONSI, although the FONSI implied the need for an EIS to consider the project's impact on an extremely significant resource: the cedar-devil's club forest. In this case, decision makers ignored repeated warnings in the administrative record that tree removal and other impacts were significant. This reinforces for the National Park Service that if an environmental assessment indicates that impacts may be significant, then an EIS must be prepared. In addition, decisions must be based on reasonable information, well documented, and fully disclosed. As the court noted, "In ignoring the repeated references in the administrative record about the significance of the proposal's impacts, the National Park Service's decision not to perform an EIS is arbitrary and capricious." Finally, proposed mitigation measures must not be speculative, but rather must be based on scientific and technical analysis and present a realistic opportunity for success in the foreseeable future.

These judgments serve as reminders of the importance of environmental compliance and the use of scientific information in arriving at preferred alternatives for management decisions.

Collaboration is critical to achieving air quality-improvement objectives. At Big Bend the National Park Service worked with federal, state, private, and international officials to design and conduct an intensive monitoring program encompassing a multistate area, including the region bordering Mexico. The study was aimed at identifying sources contributing to air pollution problems at Big Bend and will provide a foundation for seeking pollution reductions needed to restore good air quality at the park. Great Smoky Mountains and Shenandoah have been participating in the Southern Appalachian Mountain Initiative, a stakeholder-based air quality planning effort in the Southeast. Following several years of data analysis, the partnership is now beginning to build consensus on what additional pollution control strategies will be needed.

When all of these strategies fail to produce results, however, the National Park Service needs to be willing to challenge actions and confront inaction head-on. Face-to-face meetings involving the NPS Director, superintendents, and state environmental directors have been convened to signal the importance of the issue. In Shenandoah's case, where a state was not responsive, appeals have been lodged with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The next step is to ensure that the EPA carries out its oversight responsibility.

/YearInReview/yir/yir99/pages/02challenges/02hoogland_nepa.htm
Last Updated: 09/26/00
Webmaster: jeff_selleck@nps.gov