Top National Park Service officials have not rebutted claims that the agency ignored the NEPA process in adopting air tour management plans/Patrick Cone file

National Park Service officials have been silent on charges that they’ve skirted the National Environmental Policy Act when crafting air tour management plans for such national parks as Arches, Bryce Canyon, and Canyonlands in Utah. 

Congress passed NEPA in 1969. Under it, federal agencies must conduct environmental reviews for proposed “major federal action,” such as permit decisions, adoption of agency policy, formal planning, and agency projects. The NEPA question that revolves around the air tour plans is whether thousands of flight-seeing trips over national parks carry environmental impacts or set precedents that constitute a "major federal action."

The Park Service seems to be taking the approach that the overflights -- more than 500 a year at Bryce Canyon, more than 300 at Arches, and more than 350 at Canyonlands -- don't raise any environmental concerns or reflect any significant change in visitor use.

But that approach has led to criticisms that the NPS and the Federal Aviation Administration, which were told by Congress in 2000 to develop the plans, are bypassing the NEPA requirements and simply grandfathering in existing numbers of allowed flights. 

"... NPS and FAA took the [overflight] average for the past three years and adopted it as their plan. There were no noise surveys or studies, no NEPA compliance or serious consideration of alternatives," Jeff Ruch, Pacific director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, told the Traveler in an email when Bryce Canyon released its plan.

The Traveler reached out to staff at Bryce Canyon, Arches, and Canyonlands in mid-October regarding their plans and whether they skirted NEPA requirements. Those questions were forwarded to the Park Service’s Intermountain Office in Denver, which forwarded them to Washington, D.C., headquarters. Jenny Anzelmo-Sarles, the Park Service’s chief spokesperson, has not returned emails or phone calls from the Traveler regarding the questions.

In producing these plans, Park Service staff say they are designed to "protect national park resources and values by providing continued education and management oversight."

According to PEER, NPS and FAA have been claiming "categorical exclusions" -- claims that air tours won't have a significant impact on either the visitor experience or natural and cultural resources of a park and so vigorous environmental studies were unnecessary -- to avoid the entire NEPA process.

But the plans:

• Don't seem to have considered a ban on air tours as an alternative.
• Don't seem to include any sound measurements taken of air traffic noise at ground level in wilderness and non-wilderness areas of the park, levels that could be used to determine whether the aircraft currently are too loud or to set base levels for aircraft noise.
• Don't require tour operators to have “quiet technology” installed on their aircraft, but allow those that have installed it to fly later in the day than those that haven't.

An exception to this approach can be seen at Glacier National Park in Montana. Park staff there say the overflights harm the visitor experience. In its air tour management plan the park calls for all commercial air tours to be phased out by the end of 2029.

According to the Glacier plan, "[A] major complaint that the NPS receives from visitors at the Park is the intrusion that overflights have on opportunities for solitude, hearing natural sounds, and views without aircraft within the Park."

NEPA Handbook

Seven years ago the Park Service published its NEPA Handbook. This 104-page reference guide explains NEPA, outlines processes that must be followed, and states when categorical exclusions can be applied. Section 3.5 of the handbook explains when "extraordinary circumstances" arise and how they must be handled. For instance, before deciding a categorical exclusion is appropriate, park managers must, among other things, determine whether the action would

• "have significant impacts on public health or safety;"
• "have highly controversial environmental effects or involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources;" or
• "establish a precedent for future action or represent a decision in principle about future actions with potentially significant environmental effects."

But the handbook also says categorical exclusions can be used if the resulting action results in "[M]inor changes in amounts or types of visitor use for the purpose of ensuring visitor safety or resource protection in accordance with existing regulations." 

In its decision document, Arches staff said there were no extraordinary circumstances.

"The [NPS and FAA] used the NPS environmental screening form to document that there are no or minimal impacts from the [Air Tour Management Plan]. The NPS evaluated the extraordinary circumstances in 43 CFR § 46.215 and determined that no extraordinary circumstances apply and the ATMP will not result in significant impacts," the record of decision noted.

Bryce Canyon and Canyonlands staff used the exact same language.

In the case of Canyonlands, during a public comment period 473 comments were received. The greatest voiced concern [59 comments, or 12.5 percent] was over soundscape impacts.

"Many commenters requested that air tours be prohibited over national parks," the Canyonlands document said in summing up the comments. "Commenters cited the need to protect the cultural significance, wilderness and habitat, and natural experience of these Parks. Commenters stated there is ample airspace to use around these Parks for those wishing an aerial view."

At Arches, soundscape impacts also were the top concern voiced by the public, which submitted 570 comments. The second-greatest concern was that environmental reviews called for by NEPA had not been done.

Bryce Canyon staff received 488 comments, with the majority [60, or 10.8 percent of all submitted] voicing concern over soundscape impacts and lack of NEPA process.

"One commenter noted the availability of the NPS Natural Sounds Office, Natural Sounds Acoustic Monitoring Reports for many of the Parks required to issue ATMPs (https://www.nps.gov/subjects/sound/acousticmonitoring_reports.htm). The commenter stated that none of the draft ATMPs issued contain any such analysis even though NPS has baseline data for ambient sound levels at many of the parks," the Bryce Canyon record of decision noted. "The commenter added that the draft ATMPs provide no explanation for why such information has been omitted."

None of the documents included specific replies to the comments.