Editor's note: This updates with some services reduced at Grand Canyon National Park, but park remains open.
Hours after Coconino County officials in Arizona, frustrated that Grand Canyon National Park is still open despite the worsening coronavirus pandemic, urged Interior Secretary David Bernhardt on Thursday to follow guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and close the park, the National Park Service announced some operational changes at the park.
However, the South Entrance remained open, entrance fees were not being collected, and visitors were being allowed to enjoy overlooks along the South Rim of the park. Backcountry permits for camping at Bright Angel, Indian Garden, and the Cottonwood campgrounds were suspended, as was access to the Bright Angel, South Kaibab, and North Kaibab trails. Reservations for the Mather Campground also were suspended, as were those for the South Rim Trailer Village.
Meanwhile, the Coconino County Board of Supervisors was hoping that other "local, state and federal officials" would join them in seeking the park's full closure.
Shutting down the park was necessary "for the safety and health of Coconino County healthcare providers, residents and visitors," read a letter sent from the county board of supervisors to Bernhardt on Thursday.
"The Grand Canyon is the crown jewel of parks across the county and country. However, it is important that the park adheres to proven guidance to help slow the spread of COVID-19," read the letter. "Social distancing measures in response to pandemics work. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, closures aimed to reduce the spread of infection have been proven to be extremely effective. Keeping the park open and allowing travelers from all over the world to come here and risk spreading COVID-19 is an unnecessary risk."
Last weekend a similar letter from Colorado officials convinced Bernhardt to close Rocky Mountain National Park. In that situation, Estes Park Mayor Todd A. Jirsa said his town would be overwhelmed if the coronavirus pandemic swept over the bucolic gateway town.
"We have an older, high-risk population with many retirees, and limited critical resources," the mayor wrote. "Some of our businesses are closing and others are on restrictions to comply with public health orders. Medical and emergency servides, as well as basic supplies like groceries, must be available to meet the needs of our community at this time.
"Estes Park is not in a position to support the potential needs of extra guests at this time."
Earlier Thursday, the Interior secretary was strongly criticized by the head of the National Parks Conservation Association, who called Bernhardt "beyond reckless" for failing to act.
“Many of our most iconic national parks remain open during this public health crisis, and this could come at great risk. National parks are home to some of our country’s greatest natural wonders, and the parks are designed to direct visitors to them. While visitors expect to encounter crowds on popular trails and overlooks under normal circumstances, during this global pandemic it could put them in harm’s way," said NPCA President and CEO Theresa Pierno.
“Warnings on the National Park Service website and closed park facilities are not enough to deter people. In fact, the visitors are still coming in droves. Parking lots are full and attractions are too crowded as people try to seek respite in this incredibly stressful time," she added. "On a popular trail in the Grand Canyon, a ranger had 600 contacts with visitors in just one day, proving that social distancing just isn’t possible, despite people’s best intentions. If an outbreak were to occur in one of these parks, the rural community hospitals and staff would be overrun.
“Secretary Bernhardt’s refusal to close iconic parks like the Grand Canyon and Zion, despite pleas from national park staff and local communities, is beyond reckless. He is needlessly putting lives at risk by operating as if this is business as usual."
Pierno added that the Interior secretary's stance was "giving people a false sense of security by inviting them to national parks, despite the risk."
Mary Risser, the national park's acting superintendent, had met earlier this week with area officials to get their input on whether the park should close in the face of the pandemic, and indicated her position was to close the park.
"Our board weighed in and supported the park superintendent’s recommendation. The Interior secretary denied that, and then so the board followed up with a letter directly to the Interior secretary asking them to reconsider," Matt Rudig, the public information officer for Coconino County, told the Traveler on Thursday.
There were reports that the acting director of the National Park Service's Intermountain Region office had supported the decision to close. National Park Service officials in Grand Canyon National Park did not respond to a request for comment.
Alexandra Picavet, the acting chief spokesperson in the agency's Washington, D.C., headquarters, said Thursday evening that Park Service officials were evaluating "the conditions and operation" at the park and that the Park Service had not made a decision about closing Grand Canyon.
"We have not sent a request to the secretary of the Interior specific to Grand Canyon National Park," she said.
Across the country more than three dozen parks have closed, including such iconic ones as Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Yosemite, Rocky Mountain, and even Valley Forge. Why Grand Canyon and Zion national parks have remained open has drawn criticism from some circles.
Last week Zion National Park staff in Utah posted a photo of a crowd of hikers passing each other as they were either on their way up or down the popular Angels Landing Trail and used it as an example of park visitors not practicing social distancing. Days later the park closed the trail, and on Wednesday it also closed its two sprawling campgrounds in Zion Canyon.
At the Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, Phil Francis said he had been told that Shenandoah National Park's superintendent also was denied permission to close that park. While the coalition has not yet called for all national parks to close because of the pandemic, Francis said they were close to making that call.
At the Southwest Utah Health Department, spokesperson David Heaton said Thursday that the department doesn't see a sizable risk in keeping Zion open. According to the department, there have been seven confirmed COVID-19 cases in its five-county jurisdiction. Six of those are in Washington County, which part of Zion touches.
For now, the health board is urging residents and visitors to practice social distancing, and schools, universities, churches, nursing homes, and other facilities in the counties have already been temporarily closed.
Heaton said a health department employee who lives in Springdale, the main gateway to Zion, told him Thursday morning that visitor traffic was way down from usual levels.
"She said it's markedly light in Springdale as far as people coming through into the park," the spokesman said.
Comments
Rick, - His exact words which I quoted in the post just prior to yours and appears in his post ealier in this thread" "Third, it's very hard to invoke the 25th Amendment when almost all ...." Its no wonder you don't know what I am talking about when you can't even follow the thread.
Rick B., I did mention the 25th amendment. What got all of this wrestling with a pig started was a comment from a very knowledgeable commenter, CJDillon, posted last Friday afternoon, in which he noted "the number of 'actings' in this story" meaning involved with this topic, how many "people in the NPS upper management are not in permanent assignments" and how many upper level federal jobs have not been properly filled, and, finally, how it's ultimately "hard to fault a temporarily assigned superintendent who has to go back to their regular job" hoping they still have a career. CJDillon is certainly in a position to know how much power Trump and his minions can wield against underlings who aren't sycophantically loyal to the regime and how especially vulnerable an employee serving in an "acting" capacity can be under those circumstances. I still honestly believe that anyone with any serious level of experience or intelligence would quickly understand and agree.
I then posted, again last Friday afternoon, a comment in support of CJDillon's comment and tried to illustrate his comment by articulating "at least three reasons why the Trump Administration and the party that backs it have kept so many of the 'little people' of the federal government in 'acting' positions." The third reason I offered was that "it's very hard to invoke the 25th Amendment when almost all of the 'the principal officers of the executive departments' are just lower level party flunkies who have been 'snookered' into positions as 'acting' department secretaries."
Let me stop here and offer a bit of explanation about the 25th Amendment for those who may not be familiar. The 25th Amendment to the Constitution allows for the president to be relieved of his or her duties, for some indefinite length of time, in the event that a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments, meaning the "secretaries" or "heads" of the cabinet-level departments or agencies, effectively find the president to be either incapacitated or otherwise unfit to discharge those duties. It's essentially a kinder, gentler, form of temporary removal from office.
Eric immediately came to Trump's defense, stating that "of the 15 current officers, only 1 is acting" and, although that may be correct, when I posted my comment alluding to this administration's heavy use of "acting" assignees as heads of cabinet-level departments or agencies, I was referring to an earlier period when there was much discussion, at least during that period, of the majority of Trump's cabinet being there in only an "acting" capacity.
I didn't respond to him and, as my later posts indicate, I just moved on; but, he didn't. Yesterday evening, he came out with a demand that one of us, you or I, "explain how acting park superintendents are going to invoke the 25th amendment" so, to direct his fire back at me rather than keep you in the middle, I posted that "park superintendents, whether acting or not, are actually not, in any way other than perhaps as witnesses, part of the 25th amendment process," which is true. Eric then came back again, claiming that, "Someone noted the high number of "acting" superintendents in the article" and that I had replied, "...it would weaken the ability to do a 25th amendment removal." The only problem is that I never said "acting" park superintendents would weaken the ability to invoke the 25th amendment. CJDillon remarked on the number of "actings" and the number of "people in the NPS upper management who are not in permanent assignments." I responded to CJDillon, "Absolutely correct ...there are actually at least three reasons why the Trump Administration and the party that backs it have kept so many of the 'little people' of the federal government in 'acting' positions." My comment referring to the 25th amendment pertained to Trump's preference for putting people into "acting" assignments, not just "acting" park superintendents. Eric missed the point.
By the way, I seem to remember you mentioning some medical issues. How are you doing and how is it going? I hope you're getting whatever medical attention you need and the COVID-19 situation over there isn't impacting you. Everybody seems to be keeping their heads down over there.
Rump, your "point" was just wrong. There is no evidence that acting superintendents/directors are any more likely to be canned or any more likely to be intimidated. In fact two of the three acting superintendents in the article were expressing disatisfaction with policy. Apparently, they didn't feel intimidated. With one of 15 current Department heads being acting, it is hardly "heavy use" of the acting designation. The reality is you were trying to stretch an observation re acting superintendents in the park system into an attack on the Trump administration and implying the President would otherwise be subject to 25th Admentment removal. The rubber band broke. Ouch!
The impression of many acting comes from how many Presidential appointees [requiring Senate confirmation] have been left open, filled with a temp, or so on.It's a great way to keep folks unstable in their positions.
Don't forget this chart the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-administration-ap...
Pure rubish. There is absolutely no evidence that acting positions are any less stable than sitting positions.
I think ec may have a valid point. It would be hard to top this regime's record-breaking turnover of 'sitting' appointees:
82% 'A' Team departures
38% Multiple 'A' Team departures
ten cabinet head departures
https://www.brookings.edu/research/tracking-turnover-in-the-trump-admini...
Oh, almost forgot: It's 'rubbish' with two 'b's, comrade, and most Americans would not use that word. Tell Vlad he needs to up his game to troll NPT ;o)
it's sad what's become of the comment section on this site.